Meriden’s Neighbourhood Development Plan 2018-2033

Protecting our history, planning our future

Consultation Statement January 2020

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 1

This page has been left blank intentionally.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page 1. Introduction 5 2. Aim of Consultation 5 3. Background 5 4. Consultation Overview 6 5. Timetable of Consultation Undertaken 7

Appendices 1. Three Things and Strapline Surveys 22 2. Meriden Neighbourhood Area Designation 24 3. First NDP Steering Group meeting minutes 26 4. Steering Group Terms of Reference 40 5. Meriden Neighbourhood Plan Survey 44 6. Straw poll on ‘call for sites’ 115 7. Meriden Neighbourhood Plan Business Survey 116 8. Meriden Mobile Mast Survey 127 9. Meriden’s Housing Needs Survey 128 10. Pre-Submission Public Consultation Notice 146 11. Summary of Reg 14 Comments and 148 Steering Group’s Responses

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 3

This page has been left blank intentionally.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 4 1. Introduction This Consultation Statement has been prepared to fulfil the legal obligations of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012, Section 15(2). Part 5 of the Regulations set out what a Consultation Statement should contain: a. Details of the persons and bodies consulted about the proposed neighbourhood plan; b. Explains how they were consulted; c. Summarises the main issues and concerns raised by the person consulted; d. Describes how these issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant, addressed in the proposed neighbourhood development plan.

2. Aims of Consultation The aims of the Meriden Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) consultation processes are: a. To ensure that Meriden’s residents, local businesses and other interested parties have the maximum number of opportunities to input to the Neighbourhood Planning process; b. To ensure this broad consultation took place at critical points in the process; c. To ensure the consultation process used a variety of approaches and techniques in order to maximise community and business input; d. To provide feedback to the community and local businesses.

3. Background Parish Council decision to move forward At the Parish Council’s 20 October 2014 meeting, it was resolved to pursue a Neighbourhood Development Plan with the support of Kirkwells planning consultants, appointed through an initial grant from Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC). At the same time, the Clerk would pursue avenues of further grant funding. It was also agreed to designate the Parish Boundary as the Neighbourhood Area with SMBC. (Appendix 2: Meriden Neighbourhood Area Designation).

Initial Surveys Meriden Parish Council first began to consider the benefits of a Neighbourhood Plan and consult with the community in 2014 to recruit volunteers for the steering group. To engage the community and understand the issues important to the community, brief, initial surveys were conducted in 2015 (see Appendix 1: Three Things and Strapline Surveys).

Formation of the Meriden NDP Steering Group

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 5 As the consultation and analysis process progressed and became more complex, Meriden Parish Council, dissatisfied with the service from Kirkwells, decided to seek better professional support. In January 2015, the council dismissed Kirkwells and then met with Neil Pearce of Avon Planning Services Ltd and procured his services. The Meriden Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group was formed in April 2015 as a committee of Meriden Parish Council, including SMBC and residents, and held their first meeting on 21 April 2015 facilitated by Neil Pearce with 12 attendees and 1 apology for absence (Appendix 3: First NDP Steering Group meeting minutes). Subsequent Steering Group meeting minutes can be found on the Parish Council website: http://www.meridenparishcouncil.org.uk/neighbourhood-planning/ . The Steering Group’s terms of reference were agreed on 17 September 2015. (Appendix 4: Steering Group Terms of Reference).

4. Consultation Overview A commitment was made to consulting and informing residents of the Parish as much as possible to best inform the contents of the Neighbourhood Plan and reflect the views and aspirations of the Neighbourhood Area’s inhabitants. This section charts a summary of the consultation process that has been undertaken to date. It includes references to various details and examples of that process.

Additional Consultation Material: Further documentation, presentations, survey results and workshop analysis to do with Meriden’s Neighbourhood Plan and its process can be found in this consultation statement.

Communication Methods There are numerous communication methods that have been and are being used to communicate the progress and events associated with the Meriden Neighbourhood Plan. These include the Parish Council’s website and Facebook page, notice boards, the quarterly Meriden Mag, Survey Monkey, drop-in sessions at the Village Hall, Sports Park Pavilion and Meriden Library and suggestion box in the library.

Parish Council Updates As part of the consultation process, the Parish Council were regularly updated at their Council meetings. For the majority of the process, at least two Parish Councillors were also members of the Meriden Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group.

Conclusion All interested parties, including; residents, employers, landowners and/or their agents, along with others as and when appropriate, within the Meriden Neighbourhood Area have been given extensive opportunities to become involved, ask questions, offer feedback and

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 6 suggestions, and contribute to the Neighbourhood Plan. A range of methodologies have been employed to maximise input and engagement including; consultation workshops, surveys, Steering Group stall at community events, public participation sessions at Steering Group meetings, flyers, website and Facebook. Meriden Parish Council is confident that the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group have maximised potential for contribution to the plan. 5. Timetable of Consultation Undertaken

2015 The Localism Act provided an ideal opportunity to revisit the Parish Plan and to work with the local community and Meriden Parish Council to replace it with a Neighbourhood Development Plan. The application for designation of a Neighbourhood Area was approved by SMBC on 16 March 2015 (Appendix 2). Thereafter a Neighbourhood Development Plan working group was formed comprising members of the community, SMBC and parish councillors. The inaugural meeting of the working group was held on 21 April 2015.

Neighbourhood Development Plan Consultations From 2015, Meriden Parish Council started to consult with residents on what mattered to them and what they thought should be the focus of Meriden’s NDP. (Appendix 1)

Three Things and Straplines At various community events and with specific community groups, the community was asked to write down three things they liked about Meriden and three things they would change.

Top three things liked about Meriden were:  Community/community spirit – 18%  Countryside – 12%  Sports Park – 12%

The top change they would make was to improve road safety and parking at 22%.

The community was also asked to choose a strapline that best reflected what they wanted the NDP to achieve. 206 votes were cast with the following results:

 Protecting our history, planning our future – 28.1%  Your neighbourhood, your plan, your future – 15.5%  Keeping the neighbourhood yours – 13.6%  Making the most of our community – 14.6%  Our choice, our community – 14.6%  Your neighbourhood, your future – 13.6%

This was done across three years at various events and with specific community groups

 December 2014 – Meriden Primary School’s Winter Fayre to recruit volunteers (before cabinet approved the designated area)

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 7  May 2015 – Cameo (over 55s)  June 2015 – Meriden Scouts Group  July 2015 – Meriden Primary School’s Summer Fayre  December 2015 – Meriden Primary School’s Christmas Fayre

2016

Three Things (Appendix 1)

In January 2016, Meriden Parish Council engaged 127 Meriden pupils from years 7 to 13 at the Heart of Secondary School to also write down three things they liked about Meriden and three things they would change. Top three things the year 7 to year 13 students liked about Meriden were:

 Shops – 27%  Sports Park – 24%  Countryside/green and open spaces (including the duck pond) – 12%

The students’ top change that they would make was to improve/have more sporting facilities at the sports park and elsewhere – 27%

Meriden Neighbourhood Plan Survey (Appendix 5)

In June 2016, a survey for residents was conducted to help formulate the NDP. It achieved a 27.1% response rate with 370 residents returning the questionnaire. All households in Meriden had a copy of the survey hand delivered through their letterbox by members of the Parish Council and NDP Steering Group. The survey was funded by a grant from Locality.

Meriden Parish Council was present at the Funday Sunday event on the Village Green in June 2016 and asked residents to vote for their preferred strapline. Parish Councillors and members of the NDP’s Steering Group were in attendance and offered assistant to any resident who needed help completing the survey before the deadline.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 8

We promoted the survey through Facebook and our website. Screen shots of our Facebook postings feature below.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 9

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 10 Straw poll on ‘call for sites’ (Appendix 6)

In response to the 12 Meriden sites received and published as part of SMBC’s 'Call for Sites' consultation, the community was invited to take part in a straw poll consultation in September 2016 to choose three sites they thought would be suitable for development and three they thought would not be suitable.

The Straw Poll was promoted and featured on Meriden Parish Council’s Facebook page and website.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 11

2017

Meriden Neighbourhood Plan Business Survey (Appendix 7)

Over the months of June and July 2017 a survey for businesses was conducted in the parish to get their commercial view of working in Meriden. 21 businesses out of 48 completed the survey, a 43.75% response rate. The survey was hand-delivered to Meriden businesses by members of the NDP Steering Group and Parish Council.

Meriden Mobile Mast Survey (Appendix 8)

Meriden’s Neighbourhood Plan Survey revealed that top priorities for the community were 1) broadband and 2) mobile reception. In August 2017, Meriden Parish Council conducted a survey monkey to ask residents what their mobile reception was like and would they support a mobile mast in Meriden. Over 100 residents responded and confirmed mobile reception was a problem. The survey was promoted on Meriden Parish Council’s Facebook page and website.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 12

Members of the NDP Steering Group and Meriden Parish Council promoted the Neighbourhood Development Plan at community events such as the Parish Assembly in May, Funday Sunday on the Village Green in June and Picnic in the Park in July.

2018

Meriden’s Housing Needs Survey (Appendix 9)

Meriden Parish Council commissioned Rural Community Council (WRCC) to undertake a Housing Needs Survey during July 2018. The survey was funded by a grant from Locality and promoted on the parish council website and Facebook page.

Approximately 1463 survey forms were distributed to local residents and 68 were returned. Of the returned forms 1 was blank and 22 were discounted as the respondent did not indicate a housing need. The remaining 45 respondents indicated a housing need and completed all or part of the survey form.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 13

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 14

Meriden’s Housing Needs Assessment

Technical support was provided by Locality in 2018 whereby AECOM was commissioned to produce a Housing Needs Assessment for Meriden.

Their desktop research concluded that Meriden has a need for 87 affordable housing units of which 47 should be socially rented and that demand is strongest for 2-bedroom properties.

Meriden Parish Council engaged with the community at the annual Picnic in the Park in July.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 15 2019

In March, residents were invited to a drop-in session at the Village Hall to comment on the Local Green Spaces, Valued Landscapes, Community Assets and Heritage Assets that the NDP Steering Group were proposing to feature in the pre-submission draft for Regulation 14.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 16

This event was promoted on the parish council website and Facebook page.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 17

Residents also had the opportunity to view extracts from the pre-submission draft at the Parish Assembly at the Scout Hut in May.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 18 In June, following receipt of further funding from Locality, Meriden Parish Council commissioned the Habitat Biodiversity Audit Partnership for Warwickshire, and Solihull to produce an Ecological Report for Meriden Parish to feature in the NDP. In September, the pre-submission draft Neighbourhood Development Plan was completed and went to public consultation between 12 September and 25 October (Appendix 10: Pre- Submission Public Consultation Notice). Residents were encouraged to view the NDP and its appendices at Meriden Library and the Pavilion at Meriden Sports Park during the 6-week consultation period. This was promoted on notice boards, the parish council website and Facebook page.

The pre-submission draft Neighbourhood Development planned was also emailed to 41 consultees which included Solihull Council, Council, North Warwickshire Council, Coventry Council, Warwick District Council, Warwickshire Council, Hampton-in- Arden Parish Council, Parish Council, Parish Council, Bickenhill and Marston Green Parish Council, Allesley Parish Council, Fillongley Parish Council, Great and Little Packington Parish Council, Caroline Spelman MP, Solihull Council’s District Councillors Allsopp, Dicicco and Howell for Meriden and Councillors Rolf, Ryan and Sleigh for Bickenhill, the Coal Authority, Natural England, the Environment Agency, Historic England, National Grid, Network Rail, Highways England, Homes England, NHS, Severn Trent, Police, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, West Midlands Fire Services, Western Power, , Meriden Rotary Club, Meriden Scouts Group, St Laurence Church, the Methodist Church, Berkswell Society and Hampton-in-Arden Society.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 19

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 20

In total, 16 representations were received at the end of the consultation period which included five residents. Responses to the representations features in Appendix 11: Summary of Reg 14 comments and Steering Group’s responses.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 21 Appendix 1: Three Things and Strapline Surveys

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 22

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 23 Appendix 2: Meriden Neighbourhood Area Designation

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 24 Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 25 Appendix 3: First NDP Steering Group meeting minutes

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING MEETING 21-04-15

Present: Rosie Weaver, Mel Lee, Paul Lee, Steve Wake, David Bell, John Edwards, Sue Edwards, Lewis Edwards, Becky Billingsley, Bruce Brant, Barbara Bland and Neil Pearce, Avon Planning Services.

1. Welcome & Apologies Apologies received from Iain Roxburgh.

2. Introduction Rosie Weaver outlined the Neighbourhood Planning process linked to Parish Plan and Visual Design Statement. SMBC have provided guidance notes. An application was made in November 2014 for Parish Designation which after public consultation went to Cabinet in March 2015 and was approved.

The purpose of this first meeting is to agree a formal structure as a steering group with ownership and accountability remaining with the Parish Council. Nominations were invited for Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, Finance Co-ordinator, Communications Co- ordinator, Volunteer/Community Engagement Co-ordinator, Bridging Co-ordinator (to provide link between NPG and PC).

Nominations and elected roles:-

Name Role Rosie Weaver Chair TBA Vice Chair Mel Lee/Barbara Bland Secretary Becky Billingsley Funding Co-ordinator Steve Hack Volunteer/Community Engagement Co-ordinator TBA Finance Co-ordinator TBA Bridging Co-ordinator Mel Lee Communications Co-ordinator TBA Various Task & Finish Group Leads Neil Pearce Avon Planning Consultant/Support/Advisor

3. Avon Planning Services Rosie Weaver introduced Neil Pearce who will be supporting the group and assisting with the development of Meriden’s Neighbourhood Plan. Neil broke the planning process down into three stages as follows:-

Stage 1  The Parish Council will be the lead body  The Working Group sits outside of Parish Council

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 26

 The Neighbourhood Plan will be part of Standing Orders at full Council meetings  The Group will be separate in its own entity  Housing mix – policy evidence to support  Collection of statistical data/evidence  Source funding from Locality website up to 8K grants available Stage 2  Include local community including businesses and schools, particularly the Head Boy and Girl of local 6th Form (Heart of England)  Stakeholder questionnaire to include 3 top things about living in Meriden, 3 worse things and 3 things to change  Open Days/stakeholder events to be arranged including a map of the area where red/green pins may be put onto map for identifying development land  To carry out strategic appraisal/environmental assessment linked to investment and growth  Technical support (can be provided via Locality funding)  Technical support to support the rural and environmental impact of Hs2, Garden City, Housing Developments, Airport extension, M42 MSA  Community Infrastructure Levy (25% of CIL receipts) Stage 3  To undertake independent checks Stage 4  Community Referendum Stage 5  Adoption

General Discussion notes:-  Election of new government – all parties signed up to Localism Act and community right to have a Neighbourhood Development Plan  Paul Lee – Parking Enforcement  David Bell – Local Development Plan – no proposal for Meriden to get more houses; however SMBC second guessing housing numbers and being appealed as met quota, doing greenfield sites around edge of villages.  Infrastructure protect it – reduced schools, transport and highways  Allocate school land for new school  Garden City – 2,000 proposed homes will impact Meriden/Bickenhill  Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) replaces S106 for affordable housing – financial benefits?  Land Registry mapping exercise – land maps of identified land holdings to include the following development brief, specify access (10m buffer zone criteria) mixed use scheme, land swap deal, financial contribution  Older people – identify need both housing and infrastructure  Affordable housing allocations not tight enough to benefit Parish residents refer new housing policy  Preservation and protection of rural communities – bad neighbours

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 27

 Land use base benchmarking required  Joint commissioning of services including joined up approach with Hampton and Balsall Common.

Actions:

Mel Lee to source publications as per flip chart list provided by Neil Pearce.

Neil Pearce to circulate presentation and guidance notes.

Rosie Weaver to write Terms of Reference for approval at next meeting.

Barbara Bland to collect Land Registry maps from Cllr Lynch-Smith.

Rosie Weaver to carry out skills audit of membership

ALL – thoughts to be given to Task & Finish Groups and Leads

ALL – consider logo/strapline/identity

ALL – What do we want to achieve?

ALL – Mood Cards

ALL – bring a friend to next meeting

ALL – Picnic in the Park – opportunity for community engagement

The next meeting will be Tuesday 19th May at 7pm The Pavilion, Meriden Sports Park.

The meeting closed at 21.40

Signed ______Dated ______

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 28 Presentation from Avon Planning Services at first NDP Steering Group meeting

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 29

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 30

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 31

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 32

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 33

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 34

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 35

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 36

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 37

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 38

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 39 Appendix 4: Steering Group Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference

Name: Meriden Neighbourhood Development Plan Steering Group

Accoutability: Activities undertaken by the steering group should be transparent and communications links with the full parish council strong as they will remain the responsible body. The steering group should report to and receive endorsement from the parish council (via a minute) on a regular basis. Below is a checklist of things it is important to remember about the relationship between the Parish Council and the Steering Group.

 Throughout the development and implementation period of the Neighbourhood Development Plan there will be a standing Neighbourhood Planning item on the Parish Council agenda.  There should be minutes of Parish Council decisions in relation to the steering group and Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The steering group may identify a need for funded expertise from other bodies and make recommendations to the Parish Council. The Parish Council will then seek a minimum of three quotes and commission the work.  Budget responsibility lies with the parish council and not the steering group.  It is recommended that the steering group gives a presentation to the Parish via a Parish meeting, at key stages of the Neighbourhood Development Plan process.

Purpose: The purpose of the Steering Group shall be to support the Parish Council to carry out the following tasks:

(i) Investigate and identify support for the Neighbourhood Development Plan. (ii) Identify sources of funding. (iii) Take responsibility for planning, budgeting, and monitoring expenditure on the Neighbourhood Development Pan and report back to the Parish Council on these matters. (iv) Liaise with relevant authorities and organisations to make the Neighbourhood Plan as effective as possible. (v) Identify ways of involving the whole community and gather the views and opinions of as many groups and organisations in the community as possible. (vi) Determine the types of survey and information gathering to be used. (vii) To be responsible for the analysis of the survey, as well as the production and the distribution of the final report.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 40 (viii) Identify priorities and time scales for local action in the Project Plan, including the lead organisations and potential sources of project funding. (viiii) Regularly report back to the Parish Council on progress, issues arising and outcomes.

In addition, the steering group is not just limited to the tasks already detailed; there are many other possible tasks may be undertaken, such as: • Acting as a focal point for people living or working in the Neighbourhood Area. • Providing a forum for discussion and debate. • Helping to see more effective ways of getting things done. • Motivating the community to be involved throughout the plan. • Troubleshooting any conflicts raised. • Assisting the parish council to meet the terms of the service level agreement. • Assisting the plan to achieve a high profile within the local area and wider community. • Maintaining the energy and enthusiasm to ensure that whatever needs to be done, will be accomplished. • Setting up sub-groups to focus on particular themes that arise through the consultation process. • Identifying ways of involving the whole community and gather the views and opinions of as many individuals, groups and organisations in the community as possible. • Determining the types of survey and information gathering to be used. • Co-ordinating the collation and analysis of the consultation feedback in accordance with the Data Protection Act.  Obtaining advice and information about relevant matters and policies.  Prioritising actions, using the findings from the consultation process and information from other sources.  Establishing the necessary skills required to complete the Neighbourhood Development Plan.  Undertaking and producing the complimentary material such as consultation reports and environmental assessments.  Reporting back to and receiving endorsement from the parish council on progress, issues arising and outcomes throughout the process.

Membership: The Steering Group will be made up of a good cross-section of the community, including Parish Councillors nominated by the Parish and local businesses.

Roles: At the first meeting, the Steering Group will elect a Chairperson, a Secretary, and a Finance Co-ordinator.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 41 Wherever possible the Steering Group will also elect a Communication’s Co-ordinator, a Volunteer Co-ordinator and a Community Engagement Coordinator.

Meetings: The Steering Group shall normally meet monthly (but every two months as a minimum), or as may be required. At least three clear days’ notice of meetings shall be sent to members via the communication method agreed with, and appropriate to, each individual member. Whenever possible, notices of meetings should detail the matters to be discussed.

The secretary shall keep a record of meetings, and circulate notes to Steering Group members and the Parish Council in a timely fashion. The latter will publicise the notes via their usual methods.

It is recommended that an annual rolling schedule of meetings is set in place, preferably at the first meeting of the Steering Group and made available to the public via notice boards/websites.

All meetings should be held in public and be open to the public.

Copies of the Parish Council’s Code of Conduct will be available at all times.

Working Groups: The Steering Group may establish such working groups as it considers necessary to carry out the functions specified by the Steering Group.

Each working group should have a lead person.

Finance: All grants and funding will be applied for and held by the parish council, who will ring- fence the funds for Neighbourhood Development Plan purposes only.

Notification of all planned expenditure will be given to the parish council before actual costs are incurred.

The Finance Officer shall keep a clear record of expenditure supported by receipted invoices and will regularly review and update the budget in liaison with the Parish Clerk.

The Finance Co-ordinator in partnership with the parish clerk, will draw up and agree with the Steering Group procedures for volunteers who wish to claim expenses.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 42

The Finance Co-ordinator will report back to the Steering Group and the Parish Council on planned and actual expenditure for the project.

Invoices will be made out in the name of the parish council who will pay them at their next scheduled Parish Council meeting.

Members of the community who are involved as volunteers with any of the working groups may claim back any previously agreed expenditure that was necessarily incurred during the process of producing the Neighbourhood Development Plan. This could include postage and stationery, telephone calls, travel cost.

Dissolving the Steering Group At the conclusion of the Neighbourhood Development Plan project the Parish Council and Steering Group should discuss the future working of the Steering Group. If the Steering Group wishes to dissolve it must notify the Parish Council.

Signed ______

Chair

Adopted date ______

Review date ______

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 43 Appendix 5: Meriden Neighbourhood Plan Survey

Meriden Neighbourhood Plan Survey Results 2016

FINAL REPORT

Prepared by: Performance, Consultation & Insight Unit Stratford-on-Avon District Council August 2016

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 44 CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 METHODOLOGY 1

3.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 2

4.0 RESULTS 5

4.1 Housing 5

4.2 Future Housing Developments 13

4.3 Employment 16

4.4 The Natural Environment and Green Belt 18

4.5 Transport, Travel and Road Safety 21

4.6 Infrastructure 25

4.7 Community Facilities 26

4.8 Profile 28

APPENDICES

Q1 How do you occupy your present home? - Other

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 45 Q3. Is your home….? Other. Q6. If you have answered NO to Q5 above, why are you not able to?

Q8. If you could like to move is there anything preventing you from moving? Other reasons.

Q9. Please tell us the reasons for wanting or needing to move. Q12. If you were to move elsewhere in Solihull whereabouts would you move to?

Q16. If you have answered no to Q15, why would you not consider affordable housing? Q18. Is there anything preventing them from moving? Other reasons.

Q19. Please tell us the reasons for them wanting or needing to move?

Q25. Why would they not consider affordable housing? Q30. Are there any locations which you think are suitable for new homes to be built?

Q31. Are there any locations which you think are not suitable for new homes to be built?

Q32. The space below is for any other comments you may have about housing. Q33. Should existing employment sites be protected from a change of use? Comments.

Q35. If you or anyone in your household already works from home please write the type of work in the box below.

Q37. Please tell us what type of employment they would like. Q38. Do you think that any future development in Meriden should be in keeping with their character, heritage and setting within the surrounding countryside? Comments.

Q39. Should the Neighbourhood Plan aim to protect and enhance the quality of any new buildings by promoting the following? Other. Q40. Should the Neighbourhood Plan aim to promote the following….. Other.

Q41. Are there any buildings, places or views which you believe are important to protect?

Q42. The box below is provided to allow you to make your own comments on protecting the environment. Q43. As a Meriden resident, where are you travelling to when you use these forms of transport and for what reasons? For each option you tick, briefly state for what reason.

Q44. As a Meriden resident, what other forms of transport would you like to use more? For each option you tick, briefly state what it is about Meriden that prevents you doing so.

Q46. If an improved bus service is needed tell us how it should be improved. Other. Q48. If yes, how could traffic flow be improved?

Q49. If you have mobility issues, what would make it easier for you to get around Meriden? Q50. If money was available to invest in infrastructure. Where should this be spent? Please indicate your top three.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 46 Q51. Which of the following do you think that the Plan should aim to improve? Other. Q52. Do you think parking facilities need improving? Please state where you think additional parking might be provided.

Q53. If facilities for young people need improving say how and where you think this could be achieved.

Q54. The space below is for you to make any other comments on improving community facilities.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 47 1.0 Introduction

Residents were told that the Localism Act 2011 included an important piece of legislation for local communities: it gives us power to produce a Neighbourhood Plan which, when adopted by a ‘community’ referendum, will become a legal document and carry significant weight when planning decisions are made, giving you the resident, a voice.

To ensure Meriden’s Neighbourhood Development Plan becomes a legal planning requirement, it is essential that it is community led. This means that all residents should be involved to ensure their views are included and form part of the final document.

Therefore a consultation for residents in the form of a questionnaire was produced to obtain views to help decide on the policies that will form part of Meriden’s Neighbourhood Development Plan.

The following report shows the results from the questionnaire available to residents to complete.

2.0 Methodology

Stratford-on-Avon District Council, an independent body, carried out the survey on behalf of the Meriden Neighbourhood Development Plan Steering Group. The survey ran from 28th May to 9th July 2016.

Paper questionnaires were distributed to every household by members of the Steering Group which included a freepost envelope to return their completed survey or to drop off at convenient locations such as Meriden Library, FredAnita and Blitz. Members of the Steering Group were also on hand at Funday Sunday on the Village Green and helped residents fill out the questionnaire on 12th June 2016.

An online version was made available and the public were able to go to Meriden Parish Council’s website, click on the link and answer the questionnaire there. The link was also featured on the council’s Facebook page.

To incentivise the survey, respondents were invited to enter a prize draw, prizes being supplied by local businesses. The draw will take place by the end of 2016.

342 paper questionnaires were completed, with 28 also filled in online, making a total response of 370 (27.1%).

It was stressed that all the information provided would be processed and analysed by Stratford-on- Avon District Council, who aggregated the responses to create the results’ report. This way all responses were guaranteed to be anonymous and not identified to an individual.

The report follows the order of the questionnaire. Charts and tables are used throughout the report to assist the interpretation of the results. In some cases, anomalies appear due to “rounding”. The term “base” in the tables and charts refer to the number of responses to a particular question.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 48 3.0 Summary of Results

3.1 Housing

 85% of the sample owns their property either outright or on a mortgage. A third of those surveyed have lived in Meriden parish for 21 years or more. 42% of the sample lives in detached properties and 24% in semi-detached.

 Four in ten homes included in the survey have three bedrooms.

 Five households said that they were unable to keep their present home warm due to poor insulation.

 Only 3% of residents said they are thinking of moving home now and 67% said they were not likely to want to move during the next 5 years.

 45% of residents said that they would like to move, but there were no suitable homes available.

 Asked what type of property that they thought they could afford to move to, 55% said a detached house. 24 said they would need a three bedroomed property, with 17 opting for a two-bed.

 39% of residents said that if they were to move they would prefer to stay in Meriden. 2% said they would move abroad.

 83% of residents said if they were to move within Meriden they would prefer to be owner occupiers if they could afford it.

 Asked whether they had or would consider affordable housing, 71% of residents said they had not considered it.

 Those completing the survey were asked whether anyone in their household, e.g. son or daughter, relative or friend, were thinking about finding their own home in the next five years. 3% said someone was actively looking to move now and 64% said they were not likely to want to move during the next five years. This related to 33 households.

 79% of residents (26) said that as they could not afford their own home it was preventing them moving.

 68% people said they would prefer to move to a semi-detached house and 46% a flat.

 Residents were asked how many bedrooms they would need. 22 said a two bedroomed property, with 10 opting for a three-bed.

 34% of residents when asked which area they would prefer to move to said elsewhere in the UK and 28% thought they would prefer staying in Meriden.

 They were asked if they would consider affordable housing, 38% said they would consider it, 17% had already considered it and 24% said no. 3.2 Future Housing Developments

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 49

 71% of residents said that they thought that the Neighbourhood Plan should identify land for affordable housing to meet the needs of local people.

 There was almost an even split over thoughts that the Neighbourhood Plan should identify additional land for new housing for sale on the open market.

 If the Plan identifies land for new housing, residents were asked what scale of individual housing development should be given priority between now and 2028. 51% of residents said that between 11 and 25 dwellings should be the scale of individual development that should be given priority, with only 8% thinking it should be over 100 dwellings.

 58% of residents said that houses sold at market prices should be given priority in new housing, with a close second at 56% specialist accommodation for older persons to buy or rent.

3.3 Employment

 Two-thirds of residents said that existing employment sites should be protected from a change of use.

 76% of residents said that they felt the Plan should encourage working from home.

 14% of residents said that someone in their household was likely to want to find employment within the Parish in the next 5 years.

3.4 The Natural Environment and Green Belt

 The majority of residents said that any future development in Meriden should be in keeping with their character, heritage and settings within the surrounding countryside.

 94% felt that the Neighbourhood Plan should promote design that respects the scale of the existing village. 86% felt that signage, advertising and street furniture should respect the locality. Seven out of ten felt it important to use traditional local building material.

 Looking at other environmental issues, 95% of residents felt that the Neighbourhood Plan should aim to promote the maintenance and improvement of present green space and recreational areas, 89% went for the enhanced protection of historic and natural features, with 88% wanting the enhanced protection of the landscape.

3.5 Transport, Travel and Road Safety

 Residents indicated that 90% use their car and 52% walk when travelling for work, school, etc. Just under half (48%) use the bus.

 Residents were asked what form of transport they would like to use more. 59% said bus, 25% walking, 23% train, 23% bicycle, 12% taxibus, 7% car and 4% mobility vehicle/wheelchair.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 50

 4% of residents said they catch a bus daily to anywhere from Meriden and 12% a few times a week. A quarter of respondents never use the bus.

 71% of residents said that providing more frequent services to Solihull would improve the bus service. 53% would like direct services to Balsall Common.

 59% of residents thought there was a problem with traffic in the neighbourhood area.

 Of the residents that thought there was a problem with traffic, 61% said that traffic flow could be improved with lower speed limits and 54% felt there should be more active policing.

3.6 Infrastructure

 If money was available to invest in infrastructure, residents were asked to rank their top three in order of preference. Broadband was ranked first; mobile telephone was ranked second and the roads third for the areas needing most investment.

3.7 Community Facilities

 Residents were asked what community facilities should the Plan aim to improve. The top three were with 58% nature reserves/green spaces/wildlife habitat, 54% road safety measures and 51% local shops. 47% both felt public transport and parking facilities should look to be improved.

 Residents were asked whether they thought parking facilities needed improving. 58% said yes they did and 42% said they didn’t.

3.8 Profile

 Just under three in ten households completing the survey had persons aged 65 to 80, 27% had children under 16, and a quarter had persons in the 40 to 65 age group.

 One in five of those surveyed themselves of someone in their household having an illness of condition they considered to be a disability as defined in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

 Of the one in five, 66% said they had mobility impairment and 37% a physical impairment.

 30 respondents have someone in their household who uses a wheelchair or mobility scooter.

4.0 Results

4.1 Housing

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 51

85% of the sample owns their property either outright or on a mortgage.

Table 1:

How do you occupy your present home? % Own – paying a mortgage 31 Own – outright (no mortgage) 54 Own a share 1 Rent from private landlord 5 Rent from Solihull Council 4 Rent from a housing association 3 Live in a home provided by your employer 0 Living with parents 0 Sharing with friends 0 Other 6 Base: (All Respondents) (368)

A third of those surveyed have lived in Meriden parish for 21 years or more.

Table 2:

How long have you and your household lived in this % home? Under 1 year 5 1 – 2 years 11 3 - 5 years 13 6 - 10 years 12 10 - 20 years 25 21+ years 34 Base: (All Respondents) (368)

42% of the sample lives in detached properties and 24% in semi-detached.

Table 3:

Is your home? % Flat 4 Terraced house 10 Semi-detached house 24 Detached house 42 Bungalow 10 Specialist accommodation for older persons 1 Other 10 Base: (All Respondents) (369)

Four in ten homes included in the survey have three bedrooms.

Chart 1:

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 52 How many bedrooms do you have in your home?

1 6%

2 25%

3 40%

4 21%

5 or more 8%

Base: (All Respondents) (369)

Only 2% of residents said they could not keep their present home warm.

Chart 2:

Can you keep your present home warm?

2%

Yes 98%

No

Base: (All Respondents) (370)

Five households said that they were unable to keep their present home warm due to poor insulation.

Table 4:

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 53

If you have answered No to Q5 above, why are you not able to? Nos. Don’t have central heating 4 Don’t have double glazing 3 Poor insulation 5 Unable to afford the bills 1 Other 2 Base: (Those that said they can’t keep their present home warm) (11)

Only 3% of residents said they are thinking of moving home now and 67% said they were not likely to want to move during the next 5 years.

Table 5:

Are you thinking about moving home in the next 5 years? Please % tick one box only Actively looking to move now 3 Fairly likely to want to move during the next 5 years 14 Not likely to want to move during the next 5 years 67 Don’t know 15 Base: (All respondents) (365)

Those thinking of moving home (actively or fairly likely in the next five years)

45% of residents said that they would like to move, but there were no suitable homes available. 20 residents entered other reasons. These have been included in the appendix.

Table 6:

If you would like to move is there anything preventing you from % moving? Suitable home not available 45 Would have to move away from family and friends to find a suitable 12 home Would have to move away from local job or schools to find a 6 suitable home Don’t want to rent from the council or a housing association 0 Don’t know 14 Other reasons 29 Base: (Those that are looking or likely to move) (51)

Residents were asked their reason for wanting or needing to move and the 58 received have been included in the appendix.

Asked what type of property that they thought they could afford to move to, 55% said a detached house.

Table 7:

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 54 What type of property do you think you can AFFORD to move to? % Flat 28 Terraced house 22 Semi-detached house 31 Detached house 55 Bungalow 36 Specialist accommodation for older persons 9 Other 0 Base: (Those that are looking or likely to move) (64)

Residents were asked how many bedrooms they would need. 24 said a three bedroomed property, with 17 opting for a two-bed.

Table 8:

How many bedrooms would you need in another home? Nos. 1 4 2 17 3 24 4 16 5 or more 3 Base: (Those that are looking or likely to move) (64)

39% of residents said that if they were to move they would prefer to stay in Meriden. 2% said they would move abroad.

Chart 3:

If you were to move which area would you prefer to move to?

Meriden 39%

Elsewhere in the UK 29%

Elsewhere in Solihull 14%

Elsewhere in the West Midlands 8%

Berkswell 5%

Balsall Common 3%

Move abroad 2%

Base: (Those that are looking or likely to move) (59) Six people responded about the preferred tenure type, five saying owner occupier and the other rent from Solihull Council.

83% of residents said if they were to move within Meriden they would prefer to be owner occupiers if they could afford it.

Chart 4:

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 55 If you were to move within Meriden which type of tenure could you afford?

Owner occupier 83%

Rent from Solihull Council 25%

Rent from a private landlord 21%

Rent from a housing 21% association

Some form of affordable 21% housing

Other 4%

Base: (Those that are moving within Meriden) (24)

Asked whether they had or would consider affordable housing, 71% of residents said they had not considered it.

Those that said that they had not considered affordable housing were asked why they would not consider it. 37 comments were received which are included in the appendix.

Chart 5:

Those completing the survey were asked whether anyone in their household, e.g. son or daughter, relative or friend, were thinking about finding their own home in the next five years. 3% said someone was actively looking to move now and 64% said they were not likely to want to move during the next five years.

Table 9:

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 56

Is someone in your household thinking about finding their own % home in the next 5 years? Actively looking to move now 3 Fairly likely to want to move during the next 5 years 11 Not likely to want to move during the next 5 years 64 Don’t know 22 Base: (All Respondents) (298)

Those where someone in the household, e.g. son or daughter, relative or friend is thinking of moving home (actively or fairly likely in the next five years)

At this point in the survey, attention went to quizzing those households where someone was looking to move now or fairly likely in the next five years. This related to 33 households.

79% of residents (26) said that as they could not afford their own home it was preventing them moving. Seven other comments were received which have been included in the appendix.

Table 10:

Is there anything preventing them from moving? % Can’t afford own home 79 Suitable home not available 18 Would have to move away from family and friends to find a suitable 15 home Don’t want to rent from the council or a housing association 12 Would have to move away from local job or schools to find a suitable 9 home Don’t know 3 Other reasons 9 Base: (Those that are looking or likely to move) (33)

Residents were asked to provide reasons for them wanting or needing to move. 34 responses were received. These are all included in the appendix.

68% people said they would prefer to move to a semi-detached house and 46% a flat.

Table 11:

If they were to move what type of property would they prefer to move % to? Flat 46 Terraced house 38 Semi-detached house 68 Detached house 24 Bungalow 11 Specialist accommodation for older persons 0 Other 0 Base: (Those that are looking or likely to move) (37)

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 57 Residents were asked how many bedrooms they would need. 22 said a two bedroomed property, with 10 opting for a three-bed.

Table 12:

How many bedrooms would you need in another home? Nos. 1 5 2 22 3 10 4 1 Base: (Those that are looking or likely to move) (38)

34% of residents when asked which area they would prefer to move to said elsewhere in the UK and 28% thought they would prefer staying in Meriden.

Chart 6:

If they were to move which area would they prefer to move to?

Elsewhere in the UK 34%

Meriden 28%

Elsewhere in Solihull 16%

Elsewhere in the West Midlands 13%

Balsall Common 6%

Berkswell 3%

Move abroad 0%

Base: (Those that are looking or likely to move) (32)

If moving within Meriden, the type of tenure they would prefer – two households said rent from Solihull Council, one rent from a housing association and one another form of affordable housing. They were asked if they would consider affordable housing, 38% said they would consider it, 17% had already considered it and 24% said no.

Those that said they have not considered affordable housing were asked why not. 6 comments were received and these are included in the appendix.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 58 Chart 7:

Have they or would they consider affordable housing?

21% 17%

Yes - already considered 24% 38% Yes - would consider

No

Don't know

Base: (Those that are looking or likely to move) (29)

4.2 Future Housing Developments

71% of residents said that they thought that the Neighbourhood Plan should identify land for affordable housing to meet the needs of local people.

Chart 8:

Should the Neighbourhood Plan identify land for affordable housing to meet the needs of local people?

29%

71%

Yes

No

Base: (All Respondents) (356)

There was almost an even split over thoughts that the Neighbourhood Plan should identify additional land for new housing for sale on the open market.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 59 Chart 9:

Should the Neighbourhood Plan identify additional land for new housing for sale on the open market?

51% 49%

Yes

No

Base: (All Respondents) (351)

If the Plan identifies land for new housing, residents were asked what scale of individual housing development should be given priority between now and 2028.

51% of residents said that between 11 and 25 dwellings should be the scale of individual development that should be given priority, with 8% thinking it should be over 100 dwellings.

Chart 10:

58% of residents said that houses sold at market prices should be given priority in new housing, with a close second at 56% specialist accommodation for older persons to buy or rent.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 60 Table 13:

If new housing is to be built what type of homes should be given % priority? To be sold at market prices 58 Specialist accommodation for older persons to buy or rent 56 Affordable housing 38 For rent 23 Base: (All Respondents) (346)

Residents were asked to provide locations which they thought would be suitable for new homes to be built. 163 comments were received. These are included in the appendix. The table below summarises the results. The Birmingham Road Caravan Park and the Birmingham Road Garage site had most mentions.

Table 14:

Are there any locations which you think are suitable for new Number of homes to be built (3 or more mentions) Responses Birmingham Road Caravan Park 22 Birmingham Road Garage site 19 Any brownfield site 16 Maxstone Lane/Firs 12 Fillongley Road 8 Hampton Lane Quarries, Golf Course 8 Meriden Shirley’s Garage 8 Millisons Wood site 4 Any infill 3 Road towards A45 3 Birmingham Road wasteland 3

Residents were also asked what locations they thought would not be suitable and 184 comments were received. These are included in the appendix and summarised below. No building on green belt was the prominent response.

Table 15:

Are there any locations which you think are not suitable for new Number of homes to be built (2 or more mentions) Responses All greenbelt land 77 Meriden centre 21 Millisons Wood/Eastern Green 6 Maxstone Lane 4 Behind Manor Hotel 3 Birmingham Road 2 By the Church 2 Fillongley Road 2

121 other comments about housing were received which are listed in full in the appendix. Table 16 includes a summary of the responses. Concerns over the infrastructure were the main concern.

Table 16:

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 61 Any other comments on housing (3 or more mentions) Number of Responses Infrastructure cannot cope 16 Too much housing/No more building 11 More housing required/Variety 10 Affordable housing required 10 Keep Meriden a village 8 Requirements for the older community 7 No building on greenbelt 7 Parking problems 6 Crime increase/Standards dropped 4 Too much traffic 3

4.3 Employment

Two-thirds (68%) of residents said that existing employment sites should be protected from a change of use. 74 comments about a change of use were received and are included in the appendix to this report.

Chart 11:

Should existing employment sites be protected from a change of use?

32%

68%

Yes

No

Base: (All Respondents) (349)

76% of residents said that they felt the Plan should encourage working from home.

64 residents who work at home provided the type of work they do. These have been included in the appendix.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 62 Chart 12:

Should the Plan encourage working from home?

24%

76% Yes

No

Base: (All Respondents) (326)

14% of residents said that someone in their household was likely to want to find employment within the Parish in the next 5 years. 48 people provided comment on what type of employment they would like. These are included in the appendix to this report.

Chart 13:

Is anyone in your household likely to want to find employment within the Parish in the next 5 years?

14%

86% Yes

No

Base: (All Respondents) (341)

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 63 4.4 The Natural Environment and Green Belt

The majority (96%) of residents said that any future development in Meriden should be in keeping with their character, heritage and settings within the surrounding countryside.

Chart 14:

Do you think that any future development in Meriden should be in keeping with their character, heritage and setting within the surrounding countryside?

4%

96% Yes

No

Base: (All Respondents) (362)

123 residents provided comment on future development in Meriden and how it affects the character, heritage and setting within the surrounding countryside. These are included in the appendix to this report and summarised in the table below.

Table 17:

Any comments about future development (2 or more mentions) Number of Responses Keep greenbelt safe 19 Houses in keeping with the area 17 Retain village beauty/status 13 No more development 11 Keep gap between Coventry and Solihull 10 Minimal/small development only 4 Improve infrastructure to cope 3 Houses for older people 2 Build on brownfield sites only 2

Residents were quizzed as to what should be promoted in terms of the Neighbourhood Plan protecting and enhancing the quality of any new buildings.

94% felt that the Neighbourhood Plan should promote design that respects the scale of the existing village. 86% felt that signage, advertising and street furniture should respect the locality. Seven out of ten felt it important to use traditional local building material.

25 residents that indicated other provided comments. These are included in the appendix.

Table 18:

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 64 Should the Neighbourhood Plan aim to protect and enhance the % quality of any new buildings by promoting the following? Design that respects the scale of the existing village 94 Signage, advertising and street furniture that respects the locality 86 Use of traditional local building material 71 Minimum standards for living space in dwellings 63 Traditional styles and scale of shop fronts 63 High levels of energy conservation in new buildings 56 Green space and gardens 42 Other 5 Base: (All Respondents) (359)

The next question looked at other environmental issues. 95% of residents felt that the Neighbourhood Plan should aim to promote the maintenance and improvement of present green space and recreational areas, 89% went for the enhanced protection of historic and natural features, with 88% wanting the enhanced protection of the landscape.

24 residents that indicated “other” provided comment. These are included in the appendix.

Table 19:

Should the Neighbourhood Plan aim to promote the following? % Maintain and improve present green space and recreational areas 95 Enhanced protection of historic and natural features 89 Enhanced protection of the landscape 88 Positive management of the varied local wildlife 74 Improved flood prevention measures 62 Better pedestrian and cycle access 59 Other 3 Base: (All Respondents) (355)

186 residents identified buildings, places or views which they believed are important to protect. These are listed in the appendix and summarised in the table below. Meriden Green with 52 responses and the area around the Church with 39 came out top.

Table 20:

Are there any buildings, places or views which you believe are Number of important to protect? (3 or more mentions) Responses Meriden Green 52 Area around Church 39 Duck pond 26 Green areas/trees 23 View of farmland/church 19 Historical monument on Green 14 Buildings aged 100 years plus 14 The Bull Inn 12 Millisons Wood 10 Village shops/fronts 10 Village centre 8 Recreation Ground/playing fields 8 Queens Public House 7 Meriden Hall 7 Footpaths/fields public access 5 4

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 65 Surgery 3 Sports ground 3

67 further comments on protecting the environment were received. These are included in the appendix to this report.

4.5 Transport, Travel and Road Safety

Residents indicated that 90% use their car and 52% walk when travelling for work, school, etc. Just under half (48%) use the bus.

Table 21:

As a Meriden residents, where are you travelling to when you use % these forms of transport and for what reason? Car 90 Walking 52 Bus 48 Train 31 Taxibus 12 Bicycle 10 Mobility vehicle/wheelchair 4 Motorbike 3 Other 1 Base: (All Respondents) (363)

For all options available residents were asked to state for what reason they used this form of transport. 291 comments were received which are included in the appendix to this report. The main responses are summarised in the table below. The top two replies were a car for work (56 responses) and walking to keep fit (53 responses).

Table 22:

As a Meriden resident, where are you travelling to when you use Number of these forms of transport and for what reason (5 or more Responses mentions) Car – work 56 Walking - keep fit, leisure 53 Work general 27 Shopping general 24 Car – leisure 24 Walking – local shops 21 Car – shopping 20 Train – Birmingham 18 Leisure - general 16 Bus – Solihull 15 Bus – Shopping 14 Bus – leisure 14 Social – general 13 Bus – Birmingham 13 Bus – Coventry 11 Train – London 10 Train – work 9 Car – visiting family 9 Bicycle – leisure 7

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 66 Train – shopping 6 School – general 6 Train – leisure 5 Walking – school 5 Car – Solihull 5 Car – for everything 5

Residents were asked what form of transport they would like to use more. 59% said bus, 25% walking, 23% train, 23% bicycle, 12% taxibus, 7% car and 4% mobility vehicle/wheelchair.

Table 23:

As a Meriden resident, what other forms of transport would you like % to use more? Bus 59 Walking 25 Train 23 Bicycle 23 Taxibus 12 Car 7 Mobility vehicle/wheelchair 4 Motorbike 0 Other 0 Base: (All Respondents) (216)

For each option ticked, residents were asked what it is about Meriden that is preventing them from doing so. 133 comments were received. These are included in the appendix to this report and summarised in the table below.

Table 24:

As a Meriden resident, what other forms of transport would you Number of like to use more – for each option briefly state what it is about Responses Meriden that prevents you doing so? (2 or more mentions) Bus – access to more areas 15 Bus – running more frequently 13 Bus – improve cycle lanes 10 Bus – more reliable 7 Walking – improve footpaths 5 Speed bumps/traffic calming 5 Train – station 3 Improve roads 3 Train – additional services 2

Residents were asked how often they catch a bus to anywhere from Meriden.

4% of residents said they catch a bus daily to anywhere from Meriden and 12% a few times a week. A quarter of respondents never use the bus.

Chart 15:

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 67 How often do you catch a bus to anywhere from Meriden?

Never 24%

Hardly ever 20%

Occasionally 26%

A few times a month 13%

A few times a week 12%

Daily 4%

Base: (All Respondents) (362)

71% of residents said that providing more frequent services to Solihull would improve the bus service. Just over half (53%) would like direct services to Balsall Common.

52 residents selected other and provided other reasons how it should be improved. These are included in the appendix to this report.

Table 25:

If an improved bus service is needed tell us how it should be % improved. More frequent services to Solihull 71 Direct services to Balsall Common 53 Greater reliability of services 41 Cheaper fares 19 Other 11 Base: (All Respondents) (262)

59% of residents thought there was a problem with traffic in the neighbourhood area.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 68 Chart 16:

Do you think that there is a problem with traffic in the neighbourhood area?

41%

59%

Yes

No

Base: (All Respondents) (352)

Of the residents that thought there was a problem with traffic, 61% said that traffic flow could be improved with lower speed limits and 54% felt there should be more active policing.

65 residents ticked other and provided their comments, which are included in the appendix to this report.

Table 26:

How could traffic flow be improved? % Lower speed limit 61 More active policing 54 Improve parking provision 47 Vehicle activated speed limit reminder signs 46 Rumble strips 26 Chicanes 20 More mini roundabouts at junctions with main roads 9 Realignment of functions 8 Other 17 Base: (Those respondents who think there is a problem with traffic (201) in the neighbourhood area)

Residents with mobility issues were asked what would make it easier to get around Meriden. 47 comments were received which are included in the appendix.

4.6 Infrastructure

If money was available to invest in infrastructure, residents were asked to rank their top three in order of preference.

Broadband was ranked first; mobile telephone was ranked second and the roads third for the areas needing most investment.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 69

29 residents ticked other and their comments are in the appendix to this report.

Table 27:

If money was available to invest in infrastructure, where should this be spent? Please indicate your top three by writing in 1, 2 and 3 in Rank your order of preference. Broadband 1 Mobile phone 2 Roads 3 Pavements 4 Sewerage/Drainage 5 Other 6 Water supply 7 Gas 8 Electricity 9 Base: (All respondents) (370)

4.7 Community Facilities

Residents were asked what community facilities should the Plan aim to improve. A number of options were given and the top three were with 58% nature reserves/green spaces/wildlife habitat, 54% road safety measures and 51% local shops. 47% both felt public transport and parking facilities should look to be improved.

15 selected other and their comments are included in the appendix. Table 28:

Which of the following do you think that the Plan should aim to % improve? Nature reserves/green spaces/wildlife habitat 58 Road safety measures 54 Local shops 51 Public transport 47 Vehicle parking facilities 47 Facilities for older people 40 Public footpaths 39 Historic places and historic buildings 38 Facilities for young people 34 Medical facilities 31 Public library 27 Sports, leisure and recreational facilities 24 Access for people with disabilities 24 Educational facilities 17 Allotments 16 Nursery, pre-school and after school facilities 16 Burial space 15 Other 4 Base: (All Respondents) (354)

Residents were asked whether they thought parking facilities needed improving. 58% said yes they did and 42% said they didn’t.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 70 Chart 17:

Do you think parking facilities need improving?

42%

58%

Yes

No

Base: (All Respondents) (327) Those that said they did were asked to say where they thought additional parking might be provided. 155 comments were received which are included in the appendix. These comments are summarised in the table below, with “by the shops” and “by the Green” the top answers.

Table 29:

Do you think parking facilities need improving? If yes, where Number of might you think this should be provided? (2 or more mentions) Responses By the shops 20 By the Green 16 Outside school 6 Stop parking all day 5 More enforcement/Introduce meters 5 Birmingham Road 4 Review and remove double yellow lines by shops 2 Old caravan site 2 Old Shirley’s Garage site 2 Alspath Road 2 Fillongley Road 2

Residents were asked how and where they thought facilities for young people need improving. 75 comments were received. These have been included in the appendix to this report.

Any who wished to make any comments on improving community facilities was asked to include them. 48 comments were received which have been included in the appendix.

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 71 4.8 Profile

Just under three in ten households (29%) completing the survey had persons aged 65 to 80, 27% had children under 16 and a quarter had those on the 40 to 65 age group. Table 30:

To which age group do you and those living with you belong? % Under 16 27 16 to 25 4 25 to 40 10 40 to 65 25 65 to 80 29 Over 80 5

One in five of those surveyed themselves of someone in their household having an illness of condition they considered to be a disability as defined in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Table 31:

Do you or someone in your household have an illness or condition % that is considered a disability? Yes 19 No 81 Base: (All Respondents) (342)

Of the one in five, 66% said they had a mobility impairment and 37% a physical impairment. Table 32:

If YES, please let us the nature of their disability % Physical impairment 37 Mobility impairment 66 Hearing impairment 22 Visual impairment 17 Learning difficulty 12 Mental health 11 Other 31 Base: (Those with someone in their household with an illness or (65) condition that is considered a disability)

30 respondents (9%) has someone in their household who uses a wheelchair or mobility scooter.

Table 33:

Does anyone in your household use a wheelchair or mobility % scooter? Yes 9 No 91 Base: (All Respondents) (342)

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 72 Appendices

Meriden Consultation Statement March 2020 v3 73 Meriden Neighbourhood Plan Survey 2016 Literal Responses Appendix

Q1a - How do you occupy your present home? Park home Park home, bungalow Pay ground rent private land Mobile park home Live in a mobile home that I own, pay rent for site

Q3a - Is your home …? Other Age restricted age 58 above Barn conversion Cottage Dethatched park home Farm Maisonette Mobile home Mobile home Mobile Home Mobile home Mobile Home Mobile Home Mobile home Mobile home Mobile home Mobile home Mobile home Mobile home Mobile home Mobile home park home Mobile park home Mobile park home Mobile park home Mobile park home Mobile park home Park home Park home Park home Park home Park home Park home Park home Park home Park home Park home Park home Park, Home

Meriden Consultation Statement January 2020 v.1 74 Static home

Q6a - If you have answered NO to Q5 above, why are you not able to? Heat loss through walls Living on benefits Difficult with high cost of gas/electric

Q8a - If you would like to move is there anything preventing you from moving? Other reasons Will wait until children finish school Insufficient money Retirement Lack of investment in Meriden Financial situation Renovating 2nd home No Looking after elderly parents in current home Currently at university and have my rent paid. When I qualify I'm not sure whether I'll be able to afford the rent and council task Health problems Need children to find housing Haven't looked yet Saving up for a family home £ Not ready, want a bigger home Home of size and characteristics we want aren't in our price range locally Family complexities Not yet looking therefore none of the above apply Relevant employment opportunities Looking to downsize as retirement beckons

Q9 - Please tell us the reasons for wanting or needing to move? Will wait until children finish school Waiting to retire The rules are ground rent increases every year with no limit A change of scenery I'm disabled and can't cope with the area around the park home Need more space / garden Want to own our own home Retirement Mobility problems, family would need affordable house to accommodate us. Would need to be financially viable for all of us to purchase Meriden, as part of Solihull, looks tired compared to Solihull, Knowle etc. Lack of investment. Down sizing Downsize House too large for single occupant. Moving in with partner Relocate to Oakhampton, not happy with the levels of Muslims taking over Birmingham Downsizing to smaller property Bigger house, larger garden

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 75 Larger property including land Move to bungalow required Meriden is no longer the pleasant rural village it once was Downsizing I want to buy rather than rent. Sadly I will never afford a home in Meriden Itchy Feet I don't want to move but will probably have to due to finances Want a smaller home Downsizing Get nearer to relatives The construction of houses on the old recreations ground has ruined the way I feel about my home and the area Move to live with girlfriend To downsize Nearer family Smaller property required I want to have a family and I want to raise it in a house and not my current flat Expecting twins Not ready, want a bigger home Growing family so would like more space in house and garden Downsize Bigger home & to pay the home buy back - can't afford to stay! Finding the maintenance of home becoming more difficult as we get older Want to move to a larger property as an investment before downsizing when I retired. The market appears very flat at the moment, plus I'm looking for a new job, so it will probably be before 2018 before I move Larger house Growing family 2 disabled children sharing a room and need their own room Aging - possibly will be looking to downsize and/or sheltered housing Employment opportunities Better property/more potential Bungalow & garden are too big, we are growing too old to maintain Proximity to family & open space Larger home needed 'Retirement' and since new developments i.e. Mulberry Gardens, the area has changed for the worse. The village is riddles with pockets of crime and 'yobs', due to affordable housing Getting older reduced mobility. retirement I work in Warwick; although it isn't the longest commute if somewhere closer became available I would look into it. Want to live by the sea. Recycling plant, better schooling for my child and to move away from social housing a few occupants have caused problems in the area I live. Present garden is large and requires regular maintenance. We already employ someone to mow our lawns every week in the growing season, but I do not know how long I shall be able to do the other work myself. To be within the catchment for a better primary school The local school performs poorly & the crime levels aren't satisfactory.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 76 Q12b - If you were to move which area if elsewhere in Solihull? Allesley Kenilworth Elmdon - more for your money, otherwise we would stay in Meriden Hampton-in-Arden Knowle or My children want to stay in Meriden, but too expensive Owner occupier Owner Occupier Owner Occupier Owner occupier Owner occupier Owner occupier Owner Occupier Owner Occupier Rent from a private landlord; Rent from Solihull Council; Rent from a housing association Rent from Solihull council, Rent from a housing association, Some form of affordable housing Stratford upon Avon

Q16 - If you have answered NO to Q15, why would you NOT consider affordable housing? Others more needy Would need to sell present home Want to own a home not rent from the council Suitable housing would not be available, because, my family consists of daughter, husband and child. They would then have to accommodate and dependant relatives (one disabled and 1 with arthritis, this would mean a family of 5. So we would need to amalgamate both our present homes, to be able to afford to purchase a suitable one No need Not necessary As I own my own property Not applicable to my situation I can afford a more expensive property Too small and densely populated estates, parking Currently own home and wish to remain that way Because of the bidding system and the way housing is allocated Don't require it Because can afford it! Would purchase a home of quality in more rural area We have specific needs being and coming up to retirement Do not need it Tend to get rubbish neighbours I don't need affordable housing I plan to own my own house Not required As I can afford my own property and there is a shortage of affordable housing it would be irresponsible for me to own any Because you would not own it & we currently have & then you have to leave or pay a lump sum back I associate affordable housing with living in an area of high density homes (living without space!) I'm looking to build equity in my next home (hence 3-4 bedroom) and I don't think I would be able to do so with the type of housing mentioned

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 77 Don't need to Do not want to rent No need - owner occupiers No need Deposit & mortgage available We can easily afford not to move into affordable housing Currently own home/not first time buyer Not necessary financially, want to own outright because I do not need to I am fortunate to have sufficient assets not to need to consider affordable housing. It would be an abuse of the theory underpinning "affordable housing" for me to do so. Don't require it Don't need to

Q18a - Is there anything preventing them from moving? Other reasons Saving for deposit to buy own home Cheaper at home Will move to go to university Not ready at the moment, but likely to be of an age to move in next 5 years. Haven't looked yet Not sure of the direction she wishes to go Too young at moment

Q19 - Please tell us the reasons for them wanting or needing to move? Wanting to be independent and move out of family home Independence Need a garage / Nearer work / With boyfriend Set up their own home with partner To get out of this dreadful situation of ground rent Independence Growing to an age where would not wish to still live with parents Are currently renting but would like to buy their own house but cannot afford to at present. To be more independent Do not wish to live with parent Job relocation At ages 20 and 22 it will be likely in the next 5 years, however, doubtful they will be able to afford to live close. Want own space Unable to afford to buy property in Meriden area No need to move - just desire to be independent and is therefore saving Meriden is no longer the pleasant rural village it once was Mature student - not ready to move until course finished and has a job Getting older & wanting their own space To find home within their budget To start their own families and I want to move Age Looking to buy first home Want to set up own home To be nearer family

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 78 To be independent Aged 23 years professional Son would like his own home Get married and start family For his own independence Larger prospects Growing up Wishes to become more independent but hasn't got the job she wants or the place on a PGCE she wants Growing up

Q25 - If the answer to question 24 above is NO, why would they NOT consider affordable housing? Wish to own independently. Saved deposit and worked hard to finance move and associated costs Poor quality build (perception) Affordable housing is still too expensive as over a longer period and prices still inflated Couldn't afford it No reason Haven't considered it yet - too premature - still considering future

Q30 - Are there any locations which you think ARE suitable for new homes to be built? All locations Any brown field sites within the village Any infill Area around Meriden Archery club Area between Maxstoke Lane, A45 and Fillongley Road Balsall Common Behind industrial park - use brown field sites first Behind the firs Believe owners at Porsche garage are seeking to sell - small development could be appropriate Between the garage site & caravan storage, by the firs Maxstoke lane Birmingham road - caravan park seems to be abandoned most of the time and there is a site next to it that again doesn't seem to be look after, although it isn't large, it could make a small row of houses. Unsure who owns the fields at the bottom of Maxstoke lane, always very over grown and are quite large spaces (the two fields on the left hand side as you walk through the entrance by the firs. Birmingham road garage site Birmingham road waste land - currently underdeveloped Birmingham Road, Maxstoke Lane Birmingham Road, north of Village Green as identified in the Parish Plan. Birmingham Road/site/old garage Brown field sites Brown field sites Brown field sites e.g. Shirley's Garage Brown field sites where identified. Brown sites Brown sites not excessive building on green belt land brown-belt developments only Brownfield sites Brownfield sites - not green belt!!

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 79 By the new island on Birmingham Road, lots of wasteland Can't think of any Caravan car park, Birmingham Road near Maxstoke Lane Island Caravan storage land by island Caravan storage site located near village. Car sales / old garage near Strawberry Bank Caravan storage site on Birmingham Road Cornets End Lane Disused filling station/caravan park, Millisons Wood, Kenilworth Road between Meriden and Balsall Common Do not know Don't know Don't know the area well enough yet Don't really know the area just moved in EX garage Birmingham Road (west), Shirley garage Field junction Church Lane / Main Road filling in gaps rather than increasing the envelope of the village into the green belt Fillongley Road from A45 bridge towards Fillongley Fillongley Road, Berkswell Road Fillongley road, Lt side from Walsh lane - land not used at all Fillongley Road, Walsh Lane, Meriden Garage on Birmingham road Hampton lane quarry's golf courses I believe Meriden has already contributed enough recently to Solihull's quota of new housing, however I understand the desire for local people to stay local I have no idea I think the garage site would be appropriate. Basically anywhere that could be developed without destroying the character or green belt land of Meriden I think we have more than enough new houses and until we improve our doctors facility and more nursery places for young children I would not recommend any; Meriden has had one big building site for housing. No more green belt. In addition to those already identified ex-Shirley’s Garage, ex-Quarry cornets end lane, and some land bordering North Warwickshire boundary. Kidderminster Road - Garages. Birmingham Road Caravan Park Land adjacent to Meriden Hall, land at the back of the local school Land in old road Land on the Birmingham Road, incorporate the caravan storage area & extending towards Maxstoke Lane bridge Land on this right hand side as you leave Meriden towards 45 Land opposite Hampton Grange (by Birmingham Road, Caravan club bus stop) Land where the caravans were kept just off island Land; one mile distant from the village of Meriden, along the Fillongley Road Location of Birmingham road next to caravan parking London Maxstoke Lane Meriden Meriden has already taken its fair share of new housing during recent years. Large developments - strawberry fields, Maxstoke Lane, Leys Lane N/A N/A Near caravan park on Main Road between islands

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 80 Near Pound Cottage No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No - have you seen Meriden gate? That's one mistake too many No - the infrastructure can't handle any more houses No - there have been too many new homes. The school is full; Dr's busy & social housing is a nightmare!! No we are getting crowded None None None None None None None None None! I am not qualified to make such far reaching and impacting recommendations None. "Mulberry Gardens and the David Wilson" development has ruined Meriden. Don't you care about existing residents and running Meriden? North of Mordon, south of A45 behind school Not aware of any Not in Meriden Not in Meriden Not known

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 81 Not local to Meriden Not too many, Meriden should still be classed as a village not a mini town Nowhere within 1 mile from the centre of Meriden Old areas of brown belt Old garage / caravan storage sites, Birmingham Road. Land at rear of Meriden Gate Development towards A45. Any brownfield site that may be developed Old garage site - already identified It is an eyesore!! Any development needs to be accessible to public transport links Old garage site - disused site on Birmingham Road Old garage site at top of village Old petrol station off main roundabout Old petrol station side On old garage site on Birmingham road Only on land that is built on now Porsche garage site next to Strawberry Bank; behind Strawberry Bank & Strawberry fields (to playground); old caravan storage site; Millisons wood factory site; land behind houses on L.H.S Fillongley Road, leaving Meriden; behind Meriden hotel and Old Rockwell unit Possibly at the back of the Firs and the adjoining field near Maxstoke Lane Possibly the small area of Wood at the rear of Birmingham Road Millisons Wood Reclaimed land from sand excavation Reclaimed Meriden sand and stone ground Re-claimed quarry land Redevelopment of existing sites within village / outskirts of village Road towards A45 Shirley Garage, Main Rd, Meriden Shirley's garage site & possibly fields behind Shirley’s garage, public house car parks, Maxstoke lane, Hampton lane/Somers road Showell Lane Meriden Site of former Eastcote Garden Centre. Not in Meriden but in Solihull Site of old Meriden garage Birmingham Road + any brownfield sites Small area behind the Firs on Maxstoke lane; behind the Manor Hotel - extend Leys Lane development; old caravan storage site on Birmingham road The caravan storage area and the site of the old garage next to it. The field beyond Merriroyals, frontage to Fillongley Road, the abandoned field on Old Road on left The former Meriden garage (Main Rd). The former caravan sales (B'ham Rd) The garage area opposite the Kings Arms should do for housing once the owner finally decides to throw the towel in. It's not very productive use of land - although the cars are nice The old egg packing station next to Meriden primary school on the Fillongley Road The old garage site as mentioned The old garage space off Meriden island The old petrol station which has been vacant for years near island The old quarry sites, sites on the corridor between us and The site of the former Meriden garage and adjoining caravan site - and nearby field across the roundabout; Shirley's garage, any 'in filling' possible? The telephone exchange, the old caravan park, fields behind the old Maxstoke Road and the A45 as it's already ruined The village centre should remain central. Therefore build towards North Warwickshire Golf Course Towards a45 north and west of the village- this would encourage less "through traffic" Unattended land on site of caravan storage on the Birmingham Road opposite Hampton Grange, on approach to Meriden it looks unsightly

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 82 Waste ground on corner of Maxstoke lane & Birmingham road currently used for caravan storage Waste ground opposite Hampton Grange. We agree that the old garage site on the Birmingham Road is a good place for development We agree with the development of the old garage on the Birmingham Road. Land opposite Bonneville Close at Millison's Wood, between Birmingham Road and A45 we don't need any more homes We have already had developments on both Leys lane and Maxstoke Lane expanding the village enough Yes - Birmingham Road. There are caravans parked (they have no licence) next door to above. This land is a disgusting mess, and lets down the entrance to the village Yes on the land where the old caravan site was, where there is just now derelict land. I'm sure there is more land that’s suitable too

Q31 - Are there any locations which you think are NOT suitable for new homes to be built? All All farmland surrounding Meriden all green space/vacant plots within and surrounding Meriden All greenbelt areas, fields, woods All greenfield/greenbelt locations All of Meriden! Allotments in Leys Lane - anywhere that pushes village boundaries out (e.g. fields off Fillongley Road etc.) Any Any currently listed Green Belt sites. ANY GREEN BELT Any green belt land Any green belt, farm land or parks Any green field designated as green belt Any Green field location Any green space Any surrounding farm land, any green belt - all above needs continued protection Anywhere designated 'green belt' Anywhere in Meriden Anywhere in the current green belt. No link between Allesley and Millisons Wood and then Meriden Anywhere on the green belt! Anywhere other than Q30 Anywhere that has not currently been developed, i.e. fields, green belt Anywhere which comes under the green belt Anywhere within one mile of Meriden village Areas with more restricted road access or narrower lanes e.g. Shaft Lane, Bells Lane Between Meriden and Coventry Birmingham road between A45 & Hampton Grange By the church Can't comment until proposals are identified. Countryside to the east of the village - keep the Meriden Gap Current green belt land Development of sites within the village and outskirts should be considered before new greenfield sites Ditto

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 83 Do not know Don't know Don't know the area well enough yet Don't really know the area just moved in Farmers’ fields at back of Manor Hotel Farmland Farmland Farmland - green belt, nature/tree, reserve areas Field behind Queens Head pub Further development in Maxstoke Lane Further development on Leys Lane Gap between Millison's Wood & Eastern Green Green belt Green belt Green belt Green belt Green belt Green belt Green belt Green belt Green belt Green belt - never Green belt - sports fields. Public open space. Community assets. Sites of special interest Green belt & small country lanes Green belt land Green Belt Land Green belt land Green belt land Green belt land Green belt land Green belt land within Meriden Green belt land/spaces Green belt needs preserving Green belt or agricultural land Green Belt or where garages are on Fillongley Rd Green belt sites Green field sites Green field sites Green field sites Green land Greenbelt Greenbelt land Greenfield sites Homes towards Coventry and Millisons Wood I don't think any house should be built that expand the border of Meriden Ideally not within a mile of the centre of the village! In the area around the village hall & St Laurence's church Land behind houses R.H.S Fillongley Road, leaving Meriden; Low lying land (prone to flooding) behind Queen's Head & Environs

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 84 Large areas of green belt Large green field sites Leave our land for improving facilities e.g. school, parking, doctors, bank Leave the fields as fields - it's far nicer! Maxstoke Lane Maxstoke Lane Maxstoke Lane, as recently developed Meriden Meriden / Berkswell Meriden as the traffic really bad as it is Meriden Green Belt Meriden Hall Meriden is in a green belt area - no more houses Meriden! Meriden. Full stop. Millisons Wood Millison's Wood Millisons wood area, a beautiful area used by many people for leisure. The fields should be kept as they are. Most access roads to the centre of Meriden, apart from those already identified, in order to preserve a little 'village' appeal. Most of Meriden green belt no No No development on Green Belt. No further development behind Manor Hotel No greenbelt development!! No more building in Meriden No more of allotments or on the green No new homes to be built No new land or green space should be built on. No. Developers will always find more plots that are and will become available but usually for private sale and not rentable None None Not on ay green belt Not sure Not towards Birmingham or Coventry - we NEED the green belt area Nowhere within a one and half mile of the centre Old Road, Main Road, Birmingham Road, Meriden On green belt On green belt land Playing field See above The area near Queen's head - risk of flooding the green belt The green belt - it needs preserving. Meriden is a village, not a suburb The green belt between Coventry & Solihull

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 85 The infrastructure is already at bursting point. Old caravan site/pollys garage on Birmingham road would be a perfect site for a new surgery, likewise: Shirley’s garage site The Meriden locality. The new park. Village green We would not like to see developments on the fields at the back of the Manor Hotel/Queen's Head area, or behind the duck pond/scout hut, or the fields behind Millison’s Wood Would prefer no development areas on open fields Yes, any green belt fields in the vicinity of the village. The infrastructure is not able to accept, the sewage, flooding and traffic Yes, green belt locations e.g. Meriden Gap, prevent Coventry and Birmingham urban areas merging

Q32 - The space below is for any other comments you may have about housing. Over the last 5 years Meriden has seen more than its fair share of housing. Can the infrastructure sustain much more growth? Need to protect the limited green areas, fields, lanes, natural habitats Ask the local council Building of varied homes will enhance the village which will bring more local services to area and businesses which will benefit the village The recent developments that have been built are sufficient for the time being based upon Meriden's infrastructure Older community - build bungalows, sheltered housing to free up existing homes I think small infill sites on green belt could be built on There is not enough suitable housing, to cope with families who wish to look after their elderly parents. Not enough thought goes into the needs of the elderly and disabled, which could be implemented at the time of build. There should be affordable new homes, with these needs of people incorporated or at least given options No building should take place on green belt land. No large estates (future ghettos) and with enough parking provision as there is very little public transport in Meriden With the advent of possible proposed housing by Coventry City Council to the east of Meriden in vast numbers, why is it necessary for Meriden / Millisons Wood to build more? There is enough housing in Meriden We have lived in Meriden for 21 years. Since the new construction of the new housing estates, in particular the David Wilson site (old playing field), there has been a marked reduction in village standards amongst the growing population of Meriden. As a result, we believe that Meriden is a considerably less attractive place to live. (Marked increase in criminal activity and in savoury behaviour). Not in my back yard! There are plenty of brown belt sites, why not take them. Before long, all we will see is concrete of brick Green Belt should be Green Belt. No building or land grab allowed. We have done more than necessary to provide new homes in Meriden already, at the detriment to the village / school. Meriden has changed in last few years - it is becoming an extension of Chelmsley Wood, crime with it as well. Provision of parking for residents in Meriden is awful. This needs to be sorted before housing is considered and agreed. Meriden is a lovely little village like to keep it that way Enough is enough Why is there lots of building and development on Chelmsley Wood and hardly any in Meriden and surrounding areas to enable people that wish to stay in the area to do so. No one would want to downsize and move to Chelmsley Wood from here

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 86 There is not enough affordable housing for young people to be able to purchase, keeping them close to family networks (not social housing or shared ownership) single storey bungalows for senior residents to downsize The 2 developments mentioned above have expanded the village enough. Anymore & the pressure on schools & doctors facilities will be too great. I moved to Meriden to live in the semi-rural location not to be surrounded by ugly new estates with no greenery Style of any new houses must be in keeping with villages. Would not support affordable housing that ended up being sold below market value to the occupiers N/A No further requirement for additional homes within Meriden Given the fact that people are living longer I feel use need more sheltered housing for the elderly - which would help free up other low occupancy housing into the market Keep them affordable. No more 5-6 bedroom houses - we need homes for older people & apartments for young working people No more houses, we need better parking I believe the schools, NHS, road network etc. can't handle any more houses, the country is full to bursting point I do not know Meriden very well, I have only lived here for one month; Porsche garage/Main road It would be better to create housing which is smaller and more compact instead of overpriced 4 and 5 bedroom houses. Build 2 and 3 bedroom maisonettes to fulfil not from building companies to make huge profits and encourage people to be greedy and take massive mortgages Meriden is a village and would like to keep it that way. I disagreed with the last development and most of the residents did as well! Priority to smaller (e.g. 2 bed) houses and bungalows for private ownership Roughly 25 new homes for 6 years would be sufficient We cannot lose any more green belt. This is supposed to be and should remain a village Affordable housing, shared ownership and social housing needed I did not sit for three years in Eaves Green Lane protecting the green land, which travellers tried to set up, and will not agree for any future development in this area There has already been too much development in Meriden in recent years which is starting to impact on how busy the village is. Seems to be far too much traffic consistently around village Need more 2 bed homes for local families to down size As above. There are already too many new houses. The school can't cope & it should not have to expand as the kids would have even less area to play in. Meriden is a village surrounded by green belt keep it this way!! It would be nice if people who were born in the village, could afford to buy a house and not have to move away. Also, housing for older people so they can stay in the village and not move out Only that more is needed Field that are being cultivated should not be used for housing. People of the village should be able to walk across fields without having to get into cars Great care must be made in planning new housing developments to prevent villages such as Meriden becoming urbanised and losing its rural character We already have more than adequate housing for the elderly. So called "affordable housing! On the new developments are marketed at high prices than larger existing properties. The village just about maintains its social harmony and really cannot support further building which would impact on school, surgery, traffic. Further development would destroy the community dynamic resulting in the settlement being not that of a town or village. Just look at Balsall Common A mixture of house types, sizes, prices to cater for all age groups Developers want to maximise their profits so create areas such as an old playing fields and off Leys Lane. Too many houses on space available - the additional traffic, particularly at busy times, is never given sufficient thought in planning There is absolutely no way Meriden needs more housing. I have seen a decline in village life since the building of the last 2 estates - crime on increase, school classes size especially in infants

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 87 currently unacceptable for teaching. Roads are busier without traffic calming or pedestrian crossings in place especially outside the school I've lived in Meriden for 14 years, I would hate to see the character destroyed by over development To ensure the village style of Meriden is maintaining no or very little building/housing is required Small developments help the village keep its identity, and reduces instant pressure on the infrastructure This survey should be repeated after the public in Meriden have clear knowledge of the green belt sites being promoted Right to buy should ceases, and local authorities should start building L.A rented property again - if RTB continues, every sold property needs to be replaced I strongly disagree with regards to any new homes being built in Meriden unless it was for sheltered home for the elderly, with the two new developments already here, the local school is not big enough for any more children We do not think that the services such as school and doctors would cope with any further development in the village; only small developments should be approved We need to make new housing of all types; the no.1 objective - thousands not hundreds, millions not thousands nationwide Meriden has a wonderful village community feel and this needs to be maintained. The community takes pride in the village and vicinity and any new housing needs to be controlled in scale (limited) and sympathetic with the rural environment. It also needs to consider the surrounding infrastructure and protect the integrity of the village Affordable housing should be for local people I believe that the 2 new estates we have recently had, are enough for a village There seems to be many new abodes being built in Balsall Common, the next village down Services, shops & amenities to be in place to support any new housing If more sheltered housing was built it would probably free up some other housing in the village more appropriate for families There is plenty of brownfield sites available nearby - why should any more green space be used? There should always be a plan to provide homes for young people normally forced to move away from the area against their wishes, and, for older people, i.e. bungalows or sheltered accommodation Crowdsourcing for the planners is not a solution. For avoiding blame/responsibility. Where is the design! We don't need any more affordable housing in the village. The dynamics of the village and school have changed massively, and not for the better More houses = more children - what resources are being given to the primary school to cope with the increase? Increased traffic = more speeding along Fillongley Road, by the school!! Mini 'toy towns' with parking issues and yob filled developments don't add to our village. Mulberry Gardens looks like a mini slum already. Do we really want this for our lovely village! Look how the crime rate has increased, not progress I fear. Inevitable, but local councils should do their utmost to keep new development 'in-keeping' with appearance and local needs, and take into consideration medical facilities, schools and transport. The infrastructure in Meriden is poor now. More housing will put a strain on roads, school, health and social care services. Parking in the village is a nightmare Social Housing, anyone who has lived in Meriden 10+ years should be given priority over others from the Borough. There are no suitable areas for new builds. Especially as the new estates attract undesirables to the area (council) As a 21 year old who has lived in Meriden all her life, I think it's a shame that I wouldn't be able to stay here, financially it wouldn't be possible as there is no housing that is affordable for someone my age. it appears that affordable housing in recent developments have been awarded to people coming into the village at the expense of people who are already part of the local community and these people have had to leave the area or make another compromise. If affordable housing is there to

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 88 keep people in their communities then this is failing on both counts as people coming in are removed from their old community and people who need accommodation in the village to remain in their community are having to leave... If new houses are built then a new medical centre would be required with easy access for prams and the elderly As a resident in Darlaston court, parking is getting worse as more flats now have 2 or more vehicles. For 42 flats that number could easily be 70 /80 vehicles with parking provision for only about 30 cars. Future properties must consider suitable parking and adequate transit routes that will not negatively impact on the village. If this means new roads / by passes or road widening as well as an introduction of 20 mph on central routes The recent build of houses on the old Meriden Park has been a disaster. It has brought people into our community that have no respect for the area or the people living here. Some of the families on the estate have children that have been a disruptive influence on the village and the local secondary school, and it is sometimes unsafe for children to walk or play about the village because of the antisocial behaviour. Can't comment on Q28 until proposals are identified. we have had substantial development in the last few years, no further large scale developments should be considered as it will fundamentally change the village, putting strain on an already stretched infrastructure I feel that the village has gone over an acceptable allocation of new housing.

Q33a - Should existing employment sites e.g. shops, offices etc be protected from a change of use? If it is not viable to have any use out of brown sites it can be transferred to habitats Keep Meriden a village Sometimes change of use justified With few shops we have complement each other and fit in with our needs Common sense should prevail, example - the Castlebeck care home site which could have been used for housing with virtually no impact on surrounding area (top of Meriden Hill). Planning status meant no change of use We are self-sufficient as a village and do not want estate agents, solicitors, or any other business, which will be of no use to the majority of people living in the village. No takeaways - the local chip shop creates enough rubbish as it is! Loss of jobs Meriden already has limited resources and cannot afford a reduction in these facilities. This will be a land grab / stealth way to get building plots. Why should businesses / shops etc. be targeted for change of use when many have been here for years. Leave them alone Special circumstances may be considered if brown field site became vacant and this site used for housing development Depends largely on usage i.e. Tesco Express etc. as this would spoil the balance of the village We don't need any more 'takeaway' restaurants Not necessarily Shops should be allowed to be flexible to meet local needs and demands Not rigidly protected - apply common sense Important to keep local amenities & business A bit late though, in Meriden, they have converted the newsagents into housing!! The existing sites are adequate for the village We need to fill our existing row of shops with things people need not all selling the same pointless Shops are essential for local people especially the elderly More shops and longer opening hours should be encouraged I don't want any changes to village life

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 89 The need to expand the amount of shops and services provided Having local shops & amenities helps to maintain the village as a community If a business does not exist to occupy, why need it as a shop Protect shops and offices As far as I am around. these are key for the community No more fast food etc. However, within reason to protect the ideology/ambiance/ethos, call it what you will of the village/borough. The suggestion to use the old garage site in Birmingham road is good example of within reason We need as many shops and people working in and around the village as possible to keep it alive We need local shops Not necessarily but if sites remain unoccupied for long periods then a view on possible alternatives should be taken with appropriate consultation Nothing wrong in shops changing hands, but should not be allowed to be used for office use Services need to be maintained and prevent rural locations losing them The office blocks at Millisons Wood are either moth-balled, currently on the market or half empty. An admirable 'brown field' site of houses must be built. If shops are not supported, the freeholders have every right to seek planning in change of use We need to maintain a central community & give opportunity for local convenient employment for a variety of age groups There are too many offices so a change of use is worthwhile - however not change of use of shops I think local resources are very important both for a source of local development and for the amenities they provide Just depends what the change of use was No takeaways, maybe restaurant, more grocery shops Change of use to be considered on a case by case basis. You appear to have ignored the commercial/industrial units in Millsons Wood? We need all the amenities we have! There is too much building, people should work from home to protect green spaces It is important that there is adequate shopping and other facilities. The need for this is increased by the population increase We should protect current shops and businesses and help them to improve and survive No more takeaways! There are generally adequate employment sites for current and immediately projected needs both in Meriden and local areas. shops should be kept for the local community The aging population is likely to need local, pedestrian access to the current facilities. Change of use is often detrimental to nearby residents, Meriden is a rural location within the Green Belt and should be retained as such. On case by case basis Any empty unoccupied should be considered to be renovated as dwellings. Cheaper than building more dwellings! Residential and light commercial along with consumer interest properties should be encouraged, although can be proportionally limited Yes, it appears that a large shop within the village has already been turned into accommodation. We need to keep the shops/business we have. With more housing we will need more shops and local amenities so the existing ones should be protected. If business could be attracted to the area, for example by having quality offices that might encourage local employment and reduce commuting and traffic.

Q35 - If you or anyone in your household already works from home please write the type of work in the box below.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 90 3 persons, occasional, different occupations Administration Administration / Finance administration for local authority Administration/accounting Beautician/Financial adviser Carer Clerical Client based work/office admin Consultancy work Environmental & health advisor in oil industry Environmental health professional Financial advisor I used to, but am now retired I.T Information technology IT IT IT consultant IT project management Marketing manager Medical field Occasionally computer work from home Office administration Office work Office work On occasion office work Photographer Research/admin Retired Retired Sales manager Self employed Self-employed consultancy Self-Employment Sometimes work from home. Computing. Voluntary computer work Yes - general office administration

Q37 - If you have answered “YES” please tell us what type of employment they would like by writing in the box below. Any Any retail (Spar only employ family) At the AO recycling; may want a shop/bar job in next 5 years Care home assistant Cleaning / Care Customer service Don't know Farm work, bar/restaurant

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 91 I am a nurse and would like to work local - nursing or caring Manual No idea! Currently age 14 Not sure of the type yet Nothing or little available Office / technical etc Part time caring role Part time employment. Admin, service industry, or schools as children get older Part time work for teenagers Part time work for teenagers; office/admin work; marketing/communication part-time work for young teenagers Personal assistant, office manager, admin Property maintenance Son leaves school in 5 years’ time Teaching assistant Teaching Assistant Unknown at this time Unsure will investigate further in 2-3 years Voluntary / Finance. Children 16+ Hotel work Q38a - Please write any comments you may have about future development in the box below. Meriden is a lovely village. Every effort should be made to retain this. Keeping current green belt is essential Need to encourage Meriden and surrounding area to be proud as a village. Retain, limit new builds. Care more for the habitat before its gone Only one GP surgery for village To a certain extent but development should consider changes in demand / ageing population etc. Land lying between Meriden and Coventry and Meriden and Solihull should not be built upon We've already commented that we do not think there should be any more development More small bungalows should be built as many people now living in Meriden are getting older. Meriden now has enough large houses Yes but not on green belt If this isn't done the Meriden gap will disappear and we will become one urban sprawl between Birmingham and Coventry. The village will no longer exist No building should take place on the green belt - only brown field sites should be used. Once it is gone, it is gone Why destroy or impact the natural environment? The "Meriden Gap" be it east or west should be protected. If it isn't, Meriden Village will lose its identity. There has been enough development in Meriden, facilities e.g. doctor’s surgery are struggling with the increase of patients. No additional buildings It needs to retain its appearance as a semi-rural village. Not to be consumed within Coventry / Solihull conurbation. Essential I love Meriden and Meriden should stay as it is. There should be no future developments allowed. No green land development They should be in keeping with the current properties and not look out of character as to spoil the look of the village and surrounding areas Any development should be sympathetic to existing structures, complementing the historic centre of England

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 92 Meriden must remain rural No building should be allowed to expand into field around the village. This would ruin Meriden Protection of the green belt is critical I believe all applications for development should be judged on its merits. If it means that any future development that aims to be greener and conserve energy up refused just because it doesn't look like a 'playschool' house then its poor decision making Why worry about Meriden's heritage now? Two housing estates later and now it should be on keeping with character and heritage - bit late for that Preservation of the Green Belt - particularly the Meriden Gap, is very important not only to Meriden but to the surrounding urban areas of Solihull and Coventry Any plans for future developments should be put to a vote involving the people or local residents concerned Restricted build so height so it is not to obscure line of sight & views and remain in keeping. No high buildings; preserve trees and woodland The 60s and 70s architecture is dreadful. It ruined the look of the green & main road, only developments of character need to be introduced Any green belt we have left should be retained as it is The green belt around Meriden should be protected No point - council won't change Growth is always good, but links to history and style of area need to be considered at all times I don't want any changes to village life - Meriden is in a green belt area, no more houses or commercial development; Meriden is a special place More architectural development should reflect/be in keeping with the older properties It's already been ruined No more development should be built The village is currently surrounded by countryside farmland and green belt. This is why people like to live here - we do not wish to become an extension of a sprawling urban development of Birmingham or Coventry Now modern contemporary housing adds to the environment As long as they are integrated in the countryside e.g. doesn't stand out like a sore thumb Buildings should be restricted in terms of size and character, and in keeping with the environment. But there is no more space for building without spoiling the village and green belt Enough is enough!! The village is getting far too busy and congested as a result of the 2 new estates built recently Must blend in, not stick out like a sore thumb (new pavilion) In the Vale of Aden We need to keep the village this size and surrounded by green belt; the recycling facilities in the quarry will be a nightmare as that company has been at its site in Northampton (that the environment agency is closing down) Without doubt it must maintained as stated in Q38 Many people from the towns come to Meriden for cycling, walking etc. We need to protect our countryside from over development I'm not averse to development in the area, although the quiet village image and surrounding is a great asset. It's what I used to visit Meriden and Berkswell for before I moved here. Therefore any developments should try to keep the impact on these elements to a minimum. However, the existing quarrying is a good example of well concealed developments. Absolutely agree! Rural areas such as Meriden must have their character and heritage preserved, not lost forever for future generations. Meriden must not be developed into a 'mini-town' such as Balsall Common The village already has more than adequate provision for the elderly. However, a small care home for village residents might be appropriate in order that those requiring residential care can receive it within the community. Alms houses were a great idea!

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 93 We should maintain the village community and not join up with buildings in Birmingham or Coventry - once green belt is lost its lost forever I understand that we need new housing in the country and in Solihull, but to say that Meriden "has to take its share! is not acceptable, village life is being completely eroded and green belt land feels like when it suits it can be built on. I moved out of the city to live a 'village life' and feel very protective about it. I believe that we need to build from the big towns and cities out, not destroy green space Meriden should remain a village and not be developed to the same extent as Balsall Common With the encroaching HS2, it's an uphill battle anyway. If the character changes significantly, personally I would definitely look for a property elsewhere, which would be a real pity as I love Meriden Meriden should try hard to preserve its 'centre of England' heritage Sites are being promoted in Meriden to develop houses under the councils 'call for sites' exercise. There are well over 1000 new houses being proposed in green belt areas. Possibly 2000 if you include Meriden quarry and the ongoing need to accommodate Birmingham housing shortfall. Meriden residents need to be empowered to fight inappropriate development Minimum possible As I said in the last comment, I really don't know how the local school could cope with anymore developments Only small developments should be approved We need wide development but controlled (not prohibited by local residents) Please see previous comments. Meriden is a village and should not become a town The green belt needs to be protected - to build on it will destroy the character of the village Only small pockets of housing, no major scale of house building Meriden Raid fought long & hard to protects the 'Meriden Gap' & Green belt from inappropriate development. It seems ironic that a plan could be devised that ignores the numerous court cases won by the campaign that established the importance of the 'Meriden Gap' We are quickly losing green areas now being used by commercial enterprises by expansion which is totally out of keeping with the area Speculative opportunistic developing with minimum investment yields poor quality & low grade buildings, as witnessed around Meriden no building on green belt, protecting and maintaining current features in the village e.g. duck pond Keep Meriden a village Can the doctors, post office and parking cope with any more development? Is there a proposal to increase police presence with such a rise in population? Does 'Green Belt' matter anymore? Keep in mind the village plan and design statement. No multi storey and design fit for a village with adequate parking. Meriden has already had 2 recent developments and other than the Birmingham Road, north of Village Green site I don't believe any other sites are appropriate. Meriden is a Village and an asset to Solihull as it is. I would be very disappointed to see high-rise flats, I also think too many estates of closely packed houses are being built. It would be a major loss to the area if Meriden were to lose its character and identity as a small oasis in the Green Belt between Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull. Loss of green belt is a one way decision - we never get it back once it is lost. Reduction of green belt should only ever be a last resort... Should be sympathetic to the ambiance of the village The mix of rural and urban is what we love about Meriden Although happy to keep church area the same this is fundamental The village should not lose its character or sense of community. Quite how expanding the housing stock and village life can both be balanced is a difficult question. I hope you find a solution.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 94 I would rather that there wasn't any future development, as it is important that the village maintains its historic character and green belt status.

Q39a - Should the Neighbourhood Plan aim to protect and enhance the quality of any new buildings by promoting the following? Other Work to reduce anti-social behaviour within village, dumping, tipping and litter getting out of hand Adequate car parking No building on Green Belts. This village is all about who you know not what you know - jobs are given to people who know people No more houses They all reflect upon village life. Put solar panels on new houses, as standard. Renewable energy3 I won't tick minimum as I don't want buildings that are just minimum Require solar panels None No more housing should be built Sustainable building practices Ensure adequate car parking is provided, many super new estates are choked due to lack of this The rural character must be protected and 'bland developments' be avoided Avoid opening any large supermarkets nearby as this destroys local shops and communities. Maintain planting, green spaces etc. Minimum impact on green belt Footpaths/cycleways linking any new developments to existing networks The advertising splashed across the shops is unattractive and should be in character with the village None of these will happen as contracts will go to Taylor Wimpy, who build 'toy town trash'

Q40a - Should the Neighbourhood Plan aim to promote the following - Other Litter Protect Green Belt, no back door planning agreed. A crossing on Fillongley Rd near shops as often restricted Again, agree with all there Improved flood prevention measures definitely near Bulls head Vehicles continue to speed along the Main road & Leys Lane - they cut through to avoid village centre Minimise disruption from the recycling plants Maximise protection of green belt More improvement in design of roads, no tight corners or islands Protect wildlife land being used Desperately need to slow traffic on Fillongley Road Traffic calming on Fillongley Road (someone will be killed)

Q41 - Are there any buildings, places or views which you believe are important to protect? The village hall and surgery. The Gulls Head Old spar shop. Typical of old village now looking tired and in need of care from outside The main roads should not be used constantly for lorries etc. coming through village, spoiling our road - safety

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 95 None Historical monuments on the green Area around St Lawrence's Church, village centre / green area Anything connected with the St Lawrence Church Millison's Wood and surrounding fields - minimising pollution and allowing wildlife and plants to flourish naturally The view of farmland from the church on the hill The footpaths and fields for public access are a vital lung for the village. The fields behind Strawberry Fields is one place to protect. 2) Meriden Hall 3) The duck pond Meriden Hall. Meriden Green. The Church and surrounding all the fields that give a picture post card look, which is so important to us and visitors. The duck pond is a special feature and needs to be retained, in good order (this is the responsibility of Solihull Council) Meriden Green / St Lawrence Church / Duck pond / Recreation Ground All green belt land All existing green belt Meriden Gap Village green 500 yr. old cross. All buildings over 100 yrs. Our village shops. The Bull Inn and The Queens Public House Meriden Green Belt. The village green and all surrounding buildings / all local Green Belt needs to remain if we are to remain a village set in the countryside. Meriden Green Church and surrounding areas and views. The Village green Any place within 1 and a half miles of the centre Yes 'The Downlands' at the back of Pertemps off the main road also the back of Queens Head Pub and land around Meriden church, Church Lane and Somerswood Caravan Park and Stonebridge Golf Club St Lawrence’s Church / Bulls Head Meriden duck pond / Millisons Wood / Farmlands / Sports Ground / Schools / Meriden Hall / St Laurence church / Strawberry bank / Meriden gap / The green / Church Lane conservation area Village centre and sports ground The village green / The village pond/war memorial / The church for historical reasons and view / The archery club The cedars on Fillongley Road are being vandalised by car parking - branches are ripped off when they get in the way The village green area Any building of historic value should be protected and also any places or views where this is possible All historic or community based buildings should be protected or improved Meriden Green The village green (inc. monuments), children park Any green fields and trees are a view Village green, duck pond, play fields, listed historic buildings/statues Around church Area around 'The Green' SMBC have done Meriden a great dis-service with the tow housing estates; Meriden needs protecting from SMBC or there will be no fields left and Meriden will no longer be rural The green and surrounding area, the settlements around the church and the views of the church from Main Road And Berkswell Road - and from Fillongley Road and the footpaths; and the views from Church Lane over the village Any development in Meriden should always be subject to careful consideration. We all have a duty to maintain its historical background and status

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 96 Park and playing fields; the green with memorials; duck pond St Laurence Church All areas Campsites & country walks & ancient buildings & farms The village green Fairfield Rise & Alspath Road are a *** nightmare with the Co-op lorries and they drive far too fast and need to be curtailed. Also, parking on the Fillongley Road/shops as often the view to cross the road is affected by illegally parked vehicles visiting the shops or delivering Views from the church looking down to Main Road area The green and surrounding properties The green & the park/pavilion area; the bypass walking routes; the old church I don't want any changes to Meriden village - no more housing estates or commercial development Village green, duck pond, local pubs & restaurants, post office, GP surgery St Lawrence Church, The duck pond, The Green - monuments Views from & around St Laurence’s church Central green area i.e. the monument The village green, surrounding fields, church area Any green belt land The green, the whole village, surrounding green spaces All of them Buildings on the green, open spaces in Alspath road & Fillongley road, view of church from Fillongley road, vice versa and from South village pond, character of Leys lane and pond, tree on roundabout, anything else that makes village character All!! The village!! The area around the church; fields between the Fillongley Road and the Birmingham Road; the village green, the duck pond All those that I have ticked are important Green belt, fields Millison's wood, village green, listed buildings, public footpaths Village green, around Meriden church The recreation ground, the village green Village pond and green Views of fields, countryside from church The views across to Birmingham from the hill behind Meriden Hall is beautiful and an asset to the area The village green & surrounding areas, and the area around the church (St Laurence) There are numerous - the church area, the village green, the local Post Office, the village pubs and shops, the new sports ground and children's play area. The farmland and woodland surrounding the village. The village needs to be maintained and protected. Local footpaths and bridgeways. The heritage of Meriden as the centre of England needs to be protected St Laurence Church and conservation area, the village pool, the village green & conservation area, the entire expanse of agricultural land and woodland which currently encircle the village The church, cyclist memorial, Millisons wood, the pond, village green Millisons Wood The village green, the church on the hill, view of village from church gardens Church lane & surrounding fields, Millisons wood (the wood) needs better maintenance of woodland, any building of historical importance Houses, cottages, terraced houses opposite woodland near Bulls Head and opposite shops; Bulls Head and Queens Head pus/eating; the green areas going up Meriden hill along the Main Road and the lane going up the C of E church. Maintain the green areas in the village - Village green,

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 97 woodland gap, Bulls Head, village pond & surroundings, large trees seen near bottom of Leys lane. Keep the new play park The green, the pond The green - front of shops Meriden green, shop fronts, the flag, outlook to green space, trees St. Laurence church, Meriden pool, the village green & thatched cottage on Maxstoke lane, tree on roundabout, cyclists memorial The surrounding fields, pond, the Bull, all the older buildings that add to the character of Meriden. It's a long list! It is important to protect the size of the village as it will grow too large and become a suburb of Coventry. The planners should respect that this is a village and as such should maintain its green boundaries. Any building should occur on land that has previously been built on i.e. brown sites or gardens The village green, the church, the green corridor between Meriden and Millisons wood Green belt - particularly the fields behind proposal by the Arnolds to develop 575 houses (Fillongley/Main Rd) The planted, tree area on James Dawson drive that protects against road noise and promotes privacy from the main road. Protect the Queen Head pub, the Bulls Head, children’s play area and the duck pond. These are centre points of the village which enhances character Millsons Wood St Laurence church and churchyard, village green and shopfronts, Meriden duck road, war memorial Village green & monuments, pond, park, surrounding public footpaths in and around open countryside, all fields Anything around the church; all old buildings/houses on the green The views in the village are beautiful and should be kept as they are. The green should be as it is now. The church is important to protect Meriden green Village green, war memorial(s), pond, a green horizon perimeter to the village Millisons Wood & surround fields to maintain a green belt between Meriden/Solihull and Coventry Protect the church and the views from the church Meriden hall parkland lake, Morrison’s Woods with no more mobile homes on site Meriden Hall, the view from the church on the hill The setting around Meriden church should be protected as it has heritage value. As other parts of the village comprise a hotch potch of styles it's difficult to say any in particular should be protected. The village green setting is probably only exception to this. All approaches to the village should be green and not use the road edge as the boundary. Creating an organic development not a digital, urban environment Children's play area, duck pond, Millisons wood forest Local shops and views of local countryside; view of farmland from school field Village green, library, sports park, Darlaston Row, the 'pool', Meriden Hall, Fillongley Road outlook View of St Laurence Church & hill, view of fields behind Strawberry Bank, view of woodland to north of Meriden, village green should be protected Yes my view across the village & rolling hills, which 'Taylor Wimpy' promptly spoilt. Sone forever. It feels as if nothing is sacred anymore The Green and rural access routes to it. See list prepared by the Parish Council The green and the row of village shops, the new park, the sheep field, the Bulls head. All the older buildings in the village - Meriden Hall and its associated buildings, The Bulls Head and the Queens Head, thatched cottages near The Green, etc. Meriden Hall and it's grounds. C of E Church and the views from the church grounds

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 98 Local woodlands, in our case, Millisons Wood The memorial village green, the centre of Meriden From the church and the duck pond Yes, all the buildings that have character/age, ie Manor Hotel, Meriden Hall, Stone Cottage, Bulls Head, and local shops Village Green and Duck Pond the green and surrounding area the duck pond and surrounding area the school and surrounding area the GP the village hall Eves Green and surrounding area The Green and shops. Meriden Hall and its grounds, all green space, and the view from the church at the top of Meriden Hill.

Q42 - The box below is provided to allow you to make your own comments on protecting the environment. Meriden centre of England, keep it to the village as was. Stop quarry traffic Quarry / Recycling activity should be limited to Monday - Friday. Recycling activity - impact on the environment should be considered before renewal of contract. Fields behind Strawberry Bank Hotel are unavailable due to recycling waste in air Heavy lorries should be discouraged from driving through Meriden Meriden is a village with limited infrastructure/resources and should remain surrounded by countryside, which is part of protecting the environment. Already compromised by new HS2 rail link Green belt should be protected at all costs, housing should be near adequate public transport particularly trains Meriden / Millisons Wood would appear to have reached their limit if village status is to be maintained. Against re-cycling plant at Cornets End Lane. This area would be better used for housing if there has to be any. The more building allowed, will impact on wildlife and local schools and Green Belt. The school is already oversubscribed in some year groups. Building more houses will impact on this even more. Meriden is not what it was. I used to be proud to live here, but my opinion is changing. It no longer feels like a village, our open spaces are diminishing, crime is on the rise, school is overcrowded and no longer feels like a village school. Stop the building! Ensure re-cycling plant is appropriate to the areas in both size and concept The environment should be protected at all times as this is very important as it can't do it for itself, we have to take responsibility We must protect all green belt around Meriden parish. Currently on all borders development grows with airport expansion, garden city, HS2, A45 windmill development that Coventry CC has removed from green belt protection. Monitoring of quarries, all being extended with recycling operations, being SMBC's preferred site with change of use planning applications Far too many trees have been cut down recently - they are not diseased but just an inconvenience to the residents There needs to be better control of dust and other pollution arising from the quarry/waste sites to the SW of the village Maintain public bridgeways & rights of way Restrict the movement of lorries through the village expect for deliveries Make Meriden a smoke free zone I don't want any changes to Meriden village - no more housing estates or commercial development No unsightly 'wind farms' please It is important to maintain green space and the village Maintain rural character of village, protection of woodlands No more buildings in Meriden

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 99 No more development should take place or Meriden will become part of Birmingham/Solihull etc. We need to preserve our beautiful village. If help is needed with flowers/works in the village more obvious requests for help should be made Public footpaths, no industrial sites Make it as difficult as possible for motorists to exceed speed limits Housing development is necessary but must be limited to certain areas within the village e.g. brown sites and not unlimited development in green belt farmland and woodland Protect the environment we have by not building any more houses! Maintain the rural environment Keep any new house builds (especially affordable) for people already living in village prioritise housing for elderly - we do not need more young families from out of the area. No infrastructure in place to support more young families. Protection of green belt land I fully appreciate that time moves on and accommodate is required by lots of different people. The trick is balancing that with the existing size of Meriden before there is just one huge sprawl between Coventry & Birmingham. Takes a drive down and A45 into Birmingham past the airport that would be the future... We did not spend 1086 days on a protest camp protecting the green belt only to see it lost on a potentially massive scale. We need to be organised and funded to resist inappropriate development We recently moved to Meriden for a village community environment. The rural feel promotes a stress free living area Not our greatest priority, used too often by the 'nimby' brigade Preventing further expansion of industrial/commercial operations, in what is, primarily, a residential area, e.g. Pettifers Haulage and their increasing levels of HGV traffic through village and narrow lanes. Return quarry land to green belt - the industrial buildings and landscape are not in keeping with the village landscape. Lots of wildlife in the village is being crowded out by building and businesses not behaving in a quiet and respectful manner Meriden is not in itself a particularly 'pretty' cottage type village, but it is historical and its position between Birmingham and Coventry should limit the amount of development which takes place in order to protect the gap between the two large cities. The fields which form part of Meriden Hose 'parkland' (adjacent to Strawberry Bank) should be protected. I notice the hotel & one or two properties have cut down the hedge which spoils the landscape integrity of the area There has been in the 60 years I have been here, Wanton destruction, crass design & incompetent planning. I am appalled at the lack of coherent , strategic & positive planning and consider the whole process driven by corruption - self-interest by a bunch of money-grabbing egotists Most Meriden residents moved here for the village feel. That's gone, never to be recaptured. Truly sad. Not all of us wanted the tiny park as a 'bribe' to build crime ridden estates. I don't go out without my house alarm on and have installed CCTC. Drugs are being sold on Leys Lane. What's being done to protect the existing environment? One of the growing problems of LITTER and fly tipping. School training to warn of the effect of dropping litter and signage warning of penalties of doing so. Litter bin collections as needs arise. Shared communications dishes / aerials for multiple dwellings e.g. flats / elderly provision and solar and renewables for the same. Shared resources The environment in Meriden is important and should be maintained to a high standard for the benefit of those currently living in the village. There should be no more developments as the village will lose it's identity as a village and therefore the size of the village should be left alone. we should have a referendum on Meriden leaving the UK or becoming Scottish I am alarmed at the lack of consideration for green space, wildlife habitat and quality of life for residents those wishing to build and capitalise on space in Meriden show and how this lack of consideration is supported by a lack of enforcement from Solihull Council and the Secretary of State in that there is little to no planning enforcement, and recent developments in the grade 2 listed grounds of Meriden Hall resulted in green belt status of this area being totally ignored along with a number of unanimous decisions by the planning committee, the parish council and the opinions of

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 100 many people in the village. There is too much deforestation, destruction of habitat, and important historic space and retrospective planning development going on in the village (another example was Henry Morrison's cutting down of trees, and the householder next to the duck pond cutting down trees without any subsequent sanctions), with not enough enforcement to discourage it. I would like this plan to actually be taken into account by Solihull Council and the related authorities. I would like to stress that the Parish Council has provided excellent support under difficult circumstances, when the handling of green belt protection has seemed very undemocratic and unfairly weighted in favour of developers, particularly as there is much brownfield space in the village and large amounts of empty business permissive to let. There is no need to build on green belt.

Q43a - As a Meriden resident, where are you travelling to when you use these forms of transport and for what reason, e.g. work, school, other, etc.? For option give reason All - shopping, local and further away, visitor attractions all transport needs outside village fulfilled by car Bus - Coventry & Birmingham; Car - other needs & where no bus, e.g. to Knowle and Balsall Common for social; Walk - local shops Bus - shopping, concert-going; Train - shopping, concert-going; Walking - shopping, pleasure Bus - shopping, work, Coventry & Solihull; Car - Shopping, work, Solihull, Gaydon; Bicycle - leisure; Walking - leisure Bus - Solihull; Mobility scooter - doctors, local shops; Taxi bus - shopping Bus - to go to town; Walking - to keep fit Bus - town; Taxi bus - town hospital; Walking - to keep fit Cannot walk very far Car - anywhere in UK various reasons. Bus - Solihull, Coventry, Birmingham, shopping, cinema Car - banking, now we don't have one; Walking - to keep fit Car - commute; Train - Birmingham & London; Walking - dog Car - everything; Bus - sometimes to country, Solihull or Birmingham; Walking - pleasure, including dog walking Car - for work transport; Bus - for travelling around the village Car - general commute typically 4 days a week; Train - Berkswell or Birmingham international for longer commutes needed (fairly sporadic) Car - general leisure/visiting family; Bus - shopping/general leisure; Walking - exercise/nature watching Car - leisure, Bus - access to Birmingham International railway; Train access to Birmingham; Walking - leisure Car - local shops, work and visiting friends/relatives. Train - Work Car - local villages, family, social; Bus - Coventry, Birmingham, NEC; Train - Birmingham; Walking - village, rural areas Car - pleasure & visiting; Walking - exercise Car - school & work runs (Coventry); Train - work commuting (London)(Birmingham); Walking - village, dog, social Car - shopping & visiting places not easily accessible by other means; Bus - trips for entertainment/shopping near Birmingham/Coventry; Train - trips to London; Walking - local shopping, exercise, country walks Car - shopping, leisure Car - shopping, social; Bus - shopping centres; Walking - social Car - shopping, socialising; Bus - shopping, eating out etc.; Train - car to Hampton, then shopping etc. in Birmingham Car - shopping, work, leisure, social; Bus - occasional use to Coventry/rail station/airport; Train - Birmingham, London and further; Bicycle and Walking - exercise and enjoyment; Motorbike - shopping, leisure, social Car - Shopping. Train - Shopping

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 101 Car - Shopping/Visiting places. Bus - Visiting places. Train - not very often Car - shopping; Bus - hospital Car - Social and Travel Car - social, domestic; Bus - social, domestic, hospital; Taxi bus - domestic, hospital; Walking - health, keep fit Car - Solihull, Fillongley, Lea Marston, Coventry, Balsall Common; Bus - Solihull, Coventry; Walking - local walks in area (waymarked walks) Car - Solihull, Stratford, visiting friends, various; Bus - Birmingham, NEC; Train - Birmingham Car - to station, shopping and all other destinations; Bike - to station (Berkswell from Meriden); Train - to work (Birmingham & Milton Keynes; Walking - local shops & leisure Car - to work in Kettering; Train to work in London Car - to work, to go out, shopping; Train - further afield; Walk to school, to shops Car - visits to hospital & shopping Car - Work Car - work Car - work & pleasure. Bus - school & Coventry City Centre. Bicycle - pleasure. Walking - access to local business' Car - work & pleasure; Train - occasional & work in London; Bus - occasionally to work; Walking - around the village Car - work & pleasure; Walking - to shops, walking dogs & for pleasure Car - work and school; Walk - shops and playground Car - work and shopping; Bicycle - pleasure Car - work in Nuneaton; Bus/train - Birmingham Car - work, Bus - to get to Coventry/Solihull/airport, Walking - for exercise on footpaths Car - work, Coventry, Birmingham, Balsall Common; Bike/walk - Meriden Car - work, leisure, most other reasons; Bus/Train - Birmingham, shopping, leisure; Cycle - to train station or leisure; Walking - shopping in village, leisure Car - work, leisure; Taxi bus - leisure; Walking - leisure Car - Work, shopping etc Train - usually to London Walking - post office or just for pleasure through the fields Car - Work, shopping Walking - Local amenities Car - work, shopping, leisure (variety of destinations); Bus - work to Solihull; Walking - shops, leisure Car - work, shopping; Walk - school; Train - further travel Car - work, shops; Bus - Solihull, Birmingham facilities (social); Train - Birmingham (social); Taxi - airport; Walking - exercise Car - work, social & domestic; Train - work & leisure; Walking - for pleasure; Running - fitness Car - work, supermarket, shops etc.; Walk - work, school; Bus - school, Solihull, Coventry, Birmingham Car - Work. Bus - Birmingham International. Train - Birmingham. Taxi bus - Genting/Resort World Car - Work. Bus - Social events. Walking - Pleasure Car - Work. Walking - Dog Car - Work/School/Social. Train - Leisure. Bike - Leisure. Walking - School, Doctors, Leisure Car - Work/Social Car - work/social outside Meriden; Train - into Birmingham for social/work; Taxi bus - airport; Walk - school run, socialising locally Car - Work/Social. Bus - Social/Shopping. Train - Social/Shopping. Motorbike - Work/Social. Walking - Fitness Car - work; Bus - Coventry, Solihull; Walk - pleasure Car - work; Bus - leisure; Train - leisure; Walking - leisure Car - work; Bus - shopping; Walking - visiting family & recreation Car - work; Bus - Solihull

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 102 Car - work; Bus - Solihull/Birmingham; Train - Birmingham/London; Walking - around village Car - work; Bus - Solihull; Walking - pleasure Car - work; Bus – work- shopping; Train - shopping; Walking - Millisons wood Car - work; Walk - local activities; Train - work, London Car - work; walking - recreation Car and train for work Car for work and leisure Walk to village centre shops, doctors, village hall Car or bus to Solihull and Coventry. Use local stations e.g. Hampton-in-Arden and Birmingham International. Walking within the village and local footpaths Car- personal travel. Walking - Exercise Car to work. Walking to use village facilities Car to work; bus to shops; train to city & work Car -work / Train - work and shopping / Walking - Dog walking and local shopping Car: Monthly shop to supermarket. Bus: In to village for drink / eating out. Walking: Dog walking. Commuting to work, social & leisure Convenience Difficult to use bus to reach many places For shopping or visiting friends I travel by car when travelling with my wife to visit family and friends in other parts of the West Midlands and England. I occasionally travel by bus to and from Coventry, Sheldon and the NEC / Airport / Birmingham International site. I travel to London by train. I travel by motorbike for most journeys on my own. I walk to all locations within the village. Main reason is for shopping, leisure, doctors and for community meetings, church and visiting Mainly shopping, visiting relatives mainly work for car bus for some shopping Mostly car to work, school and children's activities Walk to Barker Butts rugby club, and to Millisons Wood when walking dog Bus when travelling to Birmingham airport Train when travelling to Birmingham Our daughter travels to work in her cat. The 9000 bus no longer serves the National Motorcycle Museum, shops and hospital appointments Parking free, free OAP pass Relaxation, shopping, pleasure, Solihull, Coventry, Birmingham Shopping Shopping Shopping / Leisure Shopping and entertainment, walking for exercise and pleasure. Shopping and pleasure Shopping getting around various places Shopping in Solihull and Coventry Hospital appointments in Birmingham and Solihull Train station to visit relatives Shopping, hospital, eye tests, meeting friends Shopping, socialising, exercise, pleasure Shopping, Visiting hospital/doctors Shopping, visiting, socialising etc. Shopping, volunteering, visiting Shopping, work, pleasure Shops Shops, restaurants, pubs & garden centre Social Social & recreational

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 103 Social life, visiting Solihull - church Coventry - shopping Sporting and leisure pursuits and shopping Taxi bus - Shopping, hospital Taxi bus - Solihull, Cannon Park to Birmingham International railway station To go local shops - I'm 80 years of age To shop outside the village - supermarkets and DIY shops To travel to Coventry for work, and Birmingham, Solihull and Coventry to visit relatives, friends and for leisure. Transport links unavailable - have to drive Travel 30 mins to work Travel to work Walk - school; Car - to work as long way & varied locations Walk if close, if too far to walk then car. Always use car for work. Walking - rambling & making use of rights of way; Bicycle - to doctors, local shops, in and around village Walking in the open spaces not built up areas. Car use for work, bus to stop congestion. Walking problems Work Work Work Work Work Work - buses do not go to Leamington Spa within reasonable time Work and pleasure Work and recreation, school run Work and recreation; Note - train is irrelevant as not available in Meriden Work and social Work and walk to the shop and pond Work, doctors, shops Work, leisure Work, other Work, Pleasure Work, pleasure Work, School, Recreation Work, school, recreation Work, school, walking dogs Work, Shopping, medical facilities, recreation. Work, supermarket, school, visiting, holidays Work, taking children to school, shopping etc. Work, visiting, shopping, trips Work/school/social

Q44a - As a Meriden resident, what other forms of transport would you like to use more? For each option you tick, briefly state what it is about Meriden that prevents you doing so. 82 run more often than hourly 82 Solihull bus only one every hour. If under threat, we need taxibus for the aged 900 Bus for access to Coventry doesn't exist!

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 104 Better/more frequent bus services - particularly to Balsall Common Bus - regularity Bus - unreliable. Bicycle - cycle lanes not good enough. Also pedalling up Meriden Hill. Train - No direct links and have to use car to get to station! Bus drivers speeding puts me off using the buses, especially the 82 bus Bus routes do not accommodate own lifestyle. Train requires another form of transport to get to the station Bus service not adequate, too long before a bus turns up. Then half hour wait, if there are no hold ups or break downs Bus services NE / SW poor Bus timetable is limited, 82 stops only to Solihull Bus tops too far from home to be able to walk to; Walking - no footpaths on Fillongley Road Bus, the current service is not reliable and can't be used if there are time restraints on travel. Buses not turning up Busy road with no cycle lanes Cars parked on the pavements Coordinated buses to meet train times in Hampton in Arden / Berkswell Currently don't qualify for bus pass but if I had pass I would use bus more Cycle lanes, maintained footpaths - both cases horrendous speed of vehicles in village & surrounding road. Also HGV's roaring and taking up road space Cycle paths Doesn't go regularly enough or to concert location Doesn't prevent Frequency of Solihull bus and no bus to Balsall common I have ticked these boxes for the reason that in the future I may not be able to drive I know Meriden is popular with cyclists but I don't think the village roads are particularly safe - some speed control measures such as speed bumps would help cut speeds down to safer levels Improved services, especially to Balsall Common Lack of cycle lanes, more/improved footpaths Lanes dangerous for walkers, cyclists Lifestyle Limited places to reach More reliable buses No bus close to home on the Fillongley Road No cycle paths for safe cycling that I know I live on the outskirts and there is no pavement after the A45 bridge No service to Solihull on a Sunday (82) and no bus to Coventry for Millison's wood residents No train station, I have always thought a very small train station would be beneficial to the village as a lot of people don't work in Meriden now as well as young parents that don't drive, and a train is an easier way to access places further afield. None None of the above Not available when I want to use it - evenings and weekends Not frequent enough, no bus to Balsall Common Nothing about Meriden Paths on Fillongley Rd too narrow for kids to cycle on / no cycle lanes anywhere. Traffic too fast to allow cycles on roads for kids. Roads, both in terms of maintenance (straight mile) as attitude of drivers - speeding Rural - but that's why we live here! Safety in lanes, cycle paths needed

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 105 Satisfied with present arrangements School run Shops, family, meal/drinks, friends Solihull 82 bus should run every 1/2 hour Some dedicated cycle paths would be nice Sometimes dangerous to walk, no pavements, roads too narrow or need repairs Street lighting in winter on Birmingham road between Meriden and Millisons wood is very poor. Surrounded by A45 or pot holed roads making cycling dangerous Taxis are hard to get sometimes; Bus - no Sunday service for No. 82 The bus stops are too far for me to walk to; a mobility vehicle is the only way I could get there The bus timetable from Birmingham (B’Ham Intl) can be unpredictable, with no stop at Millisons wood, and no service to connect with last train home from Birmingham The road get very busy and dangerous The roads are too fast and too busy Timetable restrictions To Coventry, Birmingham and airport Too much traffic through the village makes the pavements and roads dangerous for bikes, walking and driving Traffic drives too quickly around village especially Fillongley Road - would like children to cycle more but doesn't feel safe; Bus - need a bus to Balsall Common Traffic speed Train - access to station at Balsall Common; Taxibus - don't know much about this service Train would be convenient for Birmingham Transport availability sufficient Walking - too far to walk to work; Bicycle - routes to neighbouring villages & towns are unsafe Would be helpful to have a bus to Berkswell train station

Q46a - If an improved bus service is needed tell us how it should be improved. Reinstate the bus stop Millison Wood route on to Coventry Better Nuneaton service Better services to Millisons Wood e.g. go to Coventry More routes 900 Service through west to east. (Millisons Wood) The question should be answered by the people that use it. Better information on timetables - especially at Birmingham International We have an excellent bus service All buses to pick up in Millison's wood Buses maintaining a safe speed through the village Drivers slowing down and keeping to the speed limit No improvement required Route with stop nearer Becks Lane 900 to come down to Millisons Wood like it used to Bus drivers drive too fast Would like to travel direct to Knowle Bus drivers should drive to speed limits Real time information Need of bus to Balsall Common surgery for many people Regular bus users tell me that frequently timings are bad Improved Sunday services to Solihull, more links to Nuneaton

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 106 Bus service should return to Millisons wood from Birmingham No Sunday service for No. 82, 900 to service Millsons Wood Later time in and out of Solihull for night out (Fri/Saturday) Bus service to university, Kenilworth & Leamington Evening and Sunday service to/from Solihull Some means of being informed if Solihull bus is very late or if has been cancelled Night services from Birmingham - Coventry, late evening services Solihull Buses to nearest shopping centre r Cannon Park Quicker services and on time More frequent Fine as it is

Q48a - If YES, how could traffic flow be improved? Other 20 mph road hatching and restrictions at key areas, around the shops and school especially 20mph speed limit around the green, Main Road as far as Leys Lane and Fillongley Road beyond school Better parking for school traffic But I think any more traffic will to us over the edge any the roads will become a problem. Current speed limits are fine but not enforced. Delivery vehicles restricted through built up areas Don't build any more houses! Encourage walking to school Drivers speed through Meriden by the duck pond, but unsure how to prevent this Enforcement of speed limit on Fillongley Road HGV & weight width limits on roads in and around village I live opposite the Strawberry Bank - the noise from traffic is loud so investing in acoustic glass Idiots driving at 30 mph in 50 zones causing hazards Improve parking facilities Lower weight limit on lanes and enforced More parking facilities around Meriden green shops More policing might deter the local kids from thinking Meriden is a race track More wardens to catch people who park on double yellow line. Like in Solihull. Need pedestrian crossing on Fillongley Road (& Main Road near bus stop) Nobody adheres to speed limit through village especially the buses & travelling down Leys Lane One way system along Leys Lane, Meriden Parking at school can be problematic and must be frustrating for residents Pedestrian crossings Pelican crossing and speed camera on Fillongley Road to serve School/Nursery & improve safety Re-route HGV traffic from village green area i.e. quarry vehicles Showell Lane, like a speed way - we are frightened to walk Specific speeding problem on Fillongley Road up to school Speed bumps Speed bumps, cameras Speed cameras on Fillongley Road Speed cameras on Fillongley Road & traffic warden at school Speed cameras through the village Speed cameras, bypass. Speed humps in Fillongley Road between Main Road and the school and the other side of the school

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 107 Speed humps needed. Most definitely should introduce traffic calming measures such as rumble strips Speed humps, block Leys Lane so it is no longer a cut through Speed limits in the village are frequently ignored and need to be enforced, speed cameras Stop Fillongley road being a 'bikers' dream Stop or reduce heavy vehicles using the village as a short cut Stop residents from across the road from parking in the Meriden shops The markings on the road leading from main road to Berkswell road encourage drivers to cut the corner Traffic lights / Pedestrian/Pelican Crossing on Fillongley Road near shops

Q49 - If you have mobility issues, what would make it easier for you to get around Meriden? By car stop people parking in village shops for more than 30 mins Clear the paths to and fro Mother in law finds heavy door at post office difficult to get her pension Adequate facilities Restrict parking on side of main road by bus stops and the green by the shops. Install traffic lights by The Bulls Head. More parking People not parking on pavement near the shops Improved footpath maintenance Decent doctors surgery Being able to park at the local shops - and disability spaces My mother-in-law now lives here; better pavements, make all shops accessible Mobility scooter Pavements better maintained Insufficient parking for shops Improve foot paths Paths that are level for a possible mobility scooter Better parking for shops Dustmen to place wheelie bins back on people's property cannot get past when all over pavements have to ride scooter on roads!! Which is scary Cycle paths Drop pavement on the green; opposite Maxstoke come entrance Better quality dropped curbs Parking 900 return bus out of Birmingham doesn't go through Millsons Wood Resist development to keep traffic off the road Wider pavements, more pedestrian crossings, more thought for slow pedestrians

Q50 - If money was available to invest in infrastructure, where should this be spent? Other Footpaths, which in some places are very poor Cycle paths Flood defences Rubbish dropped on our beautiful lanes More Green Belt plans and protection Parking Landline phone (often no signal or faulty line) See Parish plan design statement

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 108 HS2 Twenty Plenty's Fillongley Road, Main Road, Leys Lane Zebra crossing Fillongley Rd by shops Hampton Road Flooding from drains on Main road near Bull's head New surgery & enhanced village hall Pot holes Traffic calming on Fillongley Road Meriden CE primary school Slower traffic in village

Q51a - Which of the following do you think that the Plan should aim to improve? Other Litter and dumping Current allotment provision is appropriate Millisons Wood has virtually no speed humps, Meriden has one every 40 yards on both sides Green Belt / Crossing on Fillongley Rd Floral displays in community areas Making Meriden a smoke free zone Very large trees sited close to bungalows need checking for safety Cannot park by shops I personally think the village is well provided with the majority of items Post Office needs to be maintained, postal services are haphazard Sports facility to have coffee shop or kiosk for Mums to meet

Q52a - Do you think parking facilities need improving? If you have answered “YES” to this question please tell us where you think additional parking might be provided. To stop people parking for all day, as parking would be easier if there were restrictions on time you can park. Never able to park at shops as people park cars all day No idea Around the green All round shops Parking could be made easier if sports ground car park was made larger to take extra vehicles Remove double yellow lines opposite shops Around the village green You need to find a way to limit time spent parking at village shops so people going out of the village to work don't park there all day and get public transport / lifts! Widen the road outside the shops to double parking spaces Meriden shops. Limit waiting time and enforce it The more spaces available only get used by people leaving their cars all day and going onto work via bus or train. The pull in on Main Road, by shops, is full by 8.30. It is being used as a car park, so no one shopping has a space Not so much additional, more management of existing e.g.: Service Rd on Green = parking 1 to 2 hr max Back of shops. Should be a sign to indicate the parking area in the recreation grounds. In front of the shops No right turn into Service Road near shops from Meriden roundabout. Plus double yellow lines covering more of Fillongley Rd. Encouragement to park in the recreational park. Darlaston Court Gardens London for all the new planned building plots.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 109 In my road there is no space to park at all. People have to park on verges otherwise road is unpassable. As parking is on the pavement and very limited, streets cannot be cleaned and refuse trucks cannot empty bins. There is space for parking to be created. I think the green grass outside the shops should be taken up to provide extra parking for shoppers therefore improving business for shop owners and so customers aren't tempted to shop elsewhere because they can't park most times Birmingham Road towards Coronation Island. Permit parking residents only. Waiting time/parking restrictions on all day parking on Main Road by green By the school There should be timed parking outside the shops, and on the main road side of the green - cars are left by bus users all day Resident parking in centre of village - too many cars are parked all day On the green Parking is difficult at the centre shops, visibility of cars coming from the island is poor when leaving the slip road in front of shops due to cars parked on Main Road The green in Meriden Parking around village stores Near the green - on Birmingham Road in place of much of present double yellow lines Parking at shops in modern village Very often I need to go round 5 or 6 times before I can park near the shops Clear the Maxstoke Lane area that is used by dog walkers and use that Not sure but more required near shops Outside of the school as it is becoming dangerous & parents park on criss cross/bus area I am unable to indicate alternative parking; I think the shops attract cars and people living close must struggle to park by their homes. Is there any space behind the shops? Near the Green for easier access to the shops School and shops In the area around the village green Still trying to think... Near shops and post office The green in Meriden Birmingham Road - before you leave the village Not on the green Very congested at times near shops. The old caravan lock up site could be used as a pay and display car park? If the drivers would use spoers car park, instead of double yellow lines!! Shop owners should not park outside the shops as it limits public parking I wish I knew Improved enforcement of parking time limits Fairfield Road opposite the Croft Road - road up to green patch by garages. Could take quite a few cars I cannot think of anywhere other than cars being parked a long way from required facilities Widen the road at the shops so cars can park diagonally Somewhere around the green Near Meriden steps Near old Shirley’s garage Inadequate around "the green". Curtail all day parking in that area Don't know Parking outside flats opposite duck pond dangerous It can be tight parking near the green but I'd rather have the green than more parking. Doesn't take long to walk to

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 110 Village shops The local shops could do with extra parking and somewhere for the people who run the shops to park. They seem to always park outside their shops which reduces the parking for people trying to use the shops Especially by the school That is the problem - where! Only a few shops in Meriden, but sometimes there are no parking spaces available Existing wide pavement from Lloyds pharmacy to Toms butchers to be narrowed to allow parking at angle; Consider feasibility of something similar opposite duck pond (flats have insufficient parking); old caravan/garage near roundabout to include parking for shops Road is very narrow for parking by the shops - especially for disabled people. There are no disabled bays The parking bays outside of the flats in Alspath Road - much of the time people have to park on the pavement whereas much of that pavement is unused by pedestrians so another two or three spaces could probably be authorised Fillongley Road Very small village for all the cars we get Convert green verge on Fillongley Road/Alspath road, by the school Cannot get parked at the local shops. Salon owner always parked outside so as a customer I cannot get parked. 'Skip' been outside far too long and prevented parking. Greater use of Sports Centre parking and incorporation of a small car park in ex-Petrol station development in Birmingham Road. Random double yellow lines throughout village. Needs be reviewed Reduce parking to 30 minutes adjacent to the Village Green on Main Road, people are parking up and catching the bus and leaving the car all day. Near the flats next to the Manor hotel - I often have to park on the Bull's Head car park, Waterfall Lane or even outside the shops on the village green when there's a wedding at the hotel. Despite several complaints to the hotel (regarding noise levels at weekends as well as parking), the number of attendees of functions there force me to park elsewhere and then retrieve my car very late at night. not necessarily additional but the all-day parking of bus commuters on Main Road/ opposite shops More spaces are needed by the shops you could create a cut in on the green just 5 more spaces would be a help. Particularly school drop off and pick up. Active policing of illegal parking near shops Around school at drop off times, and in front of shops on green With new development and near shops, could be widened? there needs to be clearer signage for the car park in the park, to encourage people to park there rather than outside people's houses we need to actively prevent people from using the green and surrounding area as a car park for when they go on holiday abroad

Q53 - If facilities for young people need improving say how and where you think this could be achieved? Don't know Sports centre Pretty good already with sports ground, but a youth club perhaps. Actually use central building for park goers. EG Sell ice creams, drinks during the summer months, allow toilets to be used by park goers. Costa Coffee like Balsall Common. Use pf playing fields for teams should be chargeable. Not on main roads to allow more building. There is nothing for teens to do. More access to safe spaces for young people in the village to go to. Youth clubs etc. / internet cafes. I think the park is adequate enough if parents want to do other activities there are plenty if you travel elsewhere. The village isn't big enough to house everything!! More social/leisure opportunities out of school, all age groups

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 111 Invite local public houses / hotels to develop clubs/discos etc. for youngsters Millison wood would benefit from a more structured pathway and points of interest to encourage more family usage e.g. bird boxes, bird watching hut, nature trail N/A Greater use of the excellent sports ground Better evening transport/buses t and from Balsall Common and Solihull Not sure local facilities need improving. Solihull centre has adequate facilities Clubs A playgroup Mon - Fri for children up to 3 Netball club/training Local youth clubs for different ages to get them off the streets - too many kids playing in the street Improved sport facilities at the park and school, if possible Mirror existing sports pavilion for teenagers and include local youngsters in planning and development (9+) (Top Juniors Project) Improve facilities for older children/teenagers at the Sports Park e.g. skate park, climbing equipment, track. Requirement for recreational area/meeting place at Millison's Wood More advertising of what is available; village web page/social media A youth coffee shop Clubs - social, sports, voluntary services to encourage teenagers to support the elderly in village At the primary school or the Methodist Hall It is one thing providing - but what an adult thinks and the young want are quite different I don't really know how the village hall is utilised, but maybe something there? No area currently for social interaction No easy answer to this, but young people need to be involved in the village & respect what is done for the good of the area Sports classes, outdoor gym for free use Free sporting activities for children aged 8-16 (maybe as samplers) There is nothing for them to do in Meriden Provide what young people want anywhere they want it to be - it's their choice No more building work Cafe's, youth clubs, gyms, takeaways More facilities for teenagers/young adults, indoor facilities for families to use Facilities for teenagers, e.g. skate park within the existing park, swing etc., for older children. Cycle lanes to encourage children to safely use their bikes Should improve but I am not an expert in this field Ask them I think since the development of the park the children in this village finally have somewhere to go and burn off energy in a fun place, when I was growing up here (I'm 21) we had barely anything to do, so we all became trouble/very bored. Also coming from a home with no drivers before me, I was pretty much stuck here. This puts me back to my earlier point of a train station, buses to Solihull stop very early and Coventry can be more trouble than it's worth, if there had been a train station when I was growing up I know my whole peer group would have had the opportunity of something to do. In saying that, Meriden was always labelled as the "old people’s village" so this didn't leave much room for teenagers. I personally would have liked somewhere to be able to sit and chill out, like a hub, I used to hate having to sit on kerbs or hang around the village. I also think the park should be open later, CCTV and very strict rules for the few people that will try and ruin it should be in place but for the majority of people I think it would just be nice to have somewhere to go. I also think a youth club should definitely be started. It's a shame the community centre was turned into housing as that would've been the perfect place for teenagers if it had been refurbed. Whilst our children are young at the moment, we can't really see what's on offer for teens NOTE: As we can't enter the household numbers on the next page here they are: 2 children under 16 2 adults aged 41-65

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 112 More activities at the park. A youth club? Clubs instead of pubs!! Need to introduce a place for children to attend and socialise in a safe environment like a social club, something for secondary aged children as the facilities for them in the village now is non- existent. Especially during the winter months.

Q54 - The space below is for you to make any other comments on improving community facilities. More help for elderly people. As Meriden has a large amount of OAP's living here No comment Development of shops / restaurants on the green. Substantial investment in doctors surgery, facilities required Have already mentioned that there should be one toilet block built. I suffer from bladder trouble and very often need this facility before travelling on public transport, can you help please Tennis courts - how to book and review pricing (peak/off peak rates) share information - set up website as not always aware of activities and utilisation of facilities Meriden looks tired compared to Solihull More daytime classes - dancing, keep fit etc. Local supermarket should be main chain e.g. M&S, Sainsbury’s, Waitrose Get an active parish council. The current one is useless. I think there should be more rental property built in Meriden as there is far too little what with people having bought a lot of it. Definitely need more parking in the village outside the shops, can't see the point of having a huge piece of grass taking up all of that space when there is hardly any parking for shoppers and shop workers / owners it’s ridiculous! More support from SMBC to improve services such as litter, refuse collection, collecting grass when mowing verges, improved drainage to eliminate flooding. Better maintenance of Meriden Road. Footpath to Berkswell Road. Re-routing of articulated vehicles using Meriden to access home farm container storage. Decrease of HGV's cutting through Meriden Heavy vehicles are creating problems with the roads - more pot holes are appearing and the speed they travel on Hampton Lane and Birmingham Road is going to cause an accident; better policing of these roads is required and a strop to the quarry lorries should be considered Meriden I feel is a last resort for Solihull Council - as I go around I see trees, hedges etc. all cut and tidy but Meriden is left for months to get over-grown, walkways are left without cleaning. Come on Parish council make sure your contractors do the jobs we pay them for I feel that the community centre has been lost, as the pavilion is only being used for sports and the village hall is too far for some people. There are no other meeting places outside of the village hall. The pavilion should be extended with more meeting space and a bigger kitchen We do need crossing in Fillongley Road by shops. Also traffic warden etc. to stop yellow line parking We have a great community and if people are made aware A bus to Balsall Common would be useful Very difficult to get appointments at local surgery, 2-3 week wait is common. Out of hours doctor's service is inadequate - have to rely on doctors from the other side of Birmingham. Need for a defibrillator is essential in the village, there to me in Balsall Common. Improved signposting to adjacent areas, many requests from visitors to the village for direction. The community facilities are all in place and many are run by volunteers. New residents should support these facilities and also volunteer. The joy of living in a rural location is the simpler life it affords. The so-called 'facilities' this survey recommends are more suited to towns and those who seek them would be happier residing in a town A new community centre - perhaps replacing village hall? Due to constant pressures on the village, I feel that the Parish council needs to arrange a meeting for the village - it feels that many residents are unaware of the constant pressures on the village with housing and recycling plants etc. threatening our way of life and greenbelt space. We need a portable defibrillator in the village, more poo bins in village especially Leys lane

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 113 I must admit I was a little worried about the leisure facilities, but they seem to have been implemented fairly well. Keeping them up to scratch should be a focus Maybe to make Meriden a tourist destination therefore ensuring its look and feel for many years - undoubtedly increased pressure to change Somebody stated that if there is no parking spaces available outside Meriden green shops permission has been given to park in the children's sports and playground over the road - no notices to say this It would be nice to have some different restaurants and take aways I think the village is run very well and the parish is doing a good job. Law and order is not too bad but the local villains do seem to set away with periodic burglaries - I don't report anything anymore as the police are clearly not interested. The problem is this runs the risk of people taking the law into their own hands For us to stay in the village the school needs to improve to a good standard as a minimum Add non-grass alternative to the playground to prevent it having to close during winter when it becomes too muddy We need to concentrate on making Meriden a better and safer place for the existing residents to live in rather than trying to expand the village. The facilities we have are not suitable for a greater influx of people and the local school will also suffer if there is an influx of new families. Meriden C of E is currently a pleasant village school and an expanding the village will threaten this. We need to hold onto our village status and stop trying to become something bigger. Balsall Common is a good example of how not to do it as it can't possibly be classed as a village anymore and we should embrace our history and retain our identity rather than ruin it just for the sake of change for changes sake. Improve what we have and stop trying to make Meriden something it’s not and doesn't need to be.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 114 Appendix 6: Straw poll on ‘call for sites’

Table showing the results of the September 2016 Straw Poll held at the Village Hall:

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 115

Appendix 7: Meriden Neighbourhood Plan Business Survey

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 116

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 117

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 118

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 119

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 120

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 121

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 122

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 123

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 124

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 125

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 126 Appendix 8: Meriden Mobile Mast Survey Results of the 2017 Mobile Mast Survey Monkey

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 127 Appendix 9: Meriden’s Housing Needs Survey

Housing Needs Survey Report for Meriden Parish Council

August 2018

Analysis by Sarah Brooke-Taylor Rural Housing Enabler, WRCC

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 128 Contents

1. Introduction

2. Results

Q1: Why do you/your household need alternative housing?

Q2: Current housing

Q3: Type of property to best suit your household

Q4: Preferred housing tenure

Q5: Local connection

Q6: Financial details

Q7: Housing waiting list

Q8 & Q9: Detail of household seeking alternative housing

3. Conclusion

4. Contact information

Appendices A: Survey form B: Property search C: Parish map

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 129 1. Introduction

Meriden Parish Council commissioned WRCC to undertake a Housing Needs Survey during July 2018 as part of the local Neighbourhood Development Plan process. The aim of the survey was to collect housing information specifically relating to Meriden parish in order to determine future local housing needs. This report provides a snapshot of the scale and nature of the housing required by the local community.

The survey was a standard document and a copy was delivered to every home. Additional copies were available for those with more than one housing need within their current household and for people not currently living in Meriden parish but who might wish to return and with a strong local connection, such as having previously lived in the parish or with close relatives in the parish. The survey was publicised locally through various means, including posters and social media. A copy of the survey form can be seen at Appendix A to this report.

Recipients were requested to consider whether “your household, anyone living in it or anyone else you know has a need for alternative housing and wishes to live within the parish of Meriden.”

Households with or containing a specific housing need were requested to complete and return the survey form, which asked for specifics of the need and details of the household in need together with sensitive information such as financial details. Respondents were assured that any information they disclosed would be treated in strict confidence.

Information provided in response to some of the questions has helped with the analysis but is confidential and therefore not reproduced within this report.

Completed survey forms were returned by Freepost envelope direct to the Rural Housing Enabler and analysis of the anonymised information provided took place in August 2018. The survey forms are retained by WRCC for a short period before being shredded and individual responses are not shared with any third party.

New affordable homes are required for two main reasons:  Many residents on low and middle incomes cannot afford to privately rent or buy market housing, and  The market does not provide the right type of accommodation for some residents, for example people who are older or infirm.

At a national level, current guidelines (National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012) emphasise the role of local communities in the planning process. For example, it encourages communities to “plan positively for local development, shaping and directing development in their area …”

There is scope for a local community to prepare a neighbourhood plan to steer development within their area and, in particular, assist in meeting any local housing that may be identified in this report or as a result of subsequent surveys.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 130 2. Results Approximately 1463 survey forms were distributed to local residents and 68 were returned. Of the returned forms 1 was blank and 22 were discounted as the respondent did not indicate a housing need. The remaining 45 respondents indicated a housing need and completed all or part of the survey form, and this section relates to information provided by these 45 respondents.

Charts and tables are used throughout this report to assist with the interpretation of the survey results. For the purposes of this document the term “respondent” refers to an individual survey form.

Q1: Why do you/your household need alternative housing?

Respondents were asked to indicate why they needed alternative accommodation and were able to indicate more than one reason for need.

Of the 45 respondents 31.1% would like their own home, 26.6% would like a larger home and 24.4% would like to downsize.

Reasons for housing need

Other - change of tenure 3

Other - change to same level living 2

Other - to return to the parish 2

Need own home 14

Current home in disrepair 1

More accessible 7

To be nearer to carer/dependent 6

Struggling to afford current home 6

Downsize 11

Larger home 12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Q2: Current housing

According to the 2011 Census 40.2% of dwellings within Meriden parish are detached, 28.1% are semi-detached and 12.6% are flats. The level of detached homes is above

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 131 average for the district (28.3%) and there is a relatively small amount of accommodation available for lower income households.

As can be seen from the chart below the vast majority (84.4%) of respondents currently live in a house, with just 8.8% living in a flat/maisonette and 6.6% residing in a mobile home/caravan.

Current housing type

4 3 House

Mobile home / caravan

Flat / maisonette 38

42 respondents indicated the number of bedrooms within their current dwelling. 18 (42%) respondents live in a 2 bed property, 11 (26%) live in a 3 bed property, 12 (28%) live in a 4 bed property and 1 respondent (2%) each live in a 1 bed and a 10 bed property.

Number of bedrooms

2% 2%

1 bed

28% 2 bed

42% 3 bed

4 bed

26% 10 bed

The 2011 Census indicated that 2720 people lived across 1220 dwellings in Meriden, giving an average household size of 2.23 persons. The above chart would therefore indicate that the majority of dwellings are not under-occupied. In 2011, 27 (2.2%) local households were living in overcrowded conditions.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 132 With regard to property tenure, as can be seen from the following chart, at 18 responses (43%) the largest group currently reside within an owner occupier property.

The next largest group is private rent at 29% (12 respondents), followed by 5 respondents living with parents (12%), 7% (3) renting their current dwelling from a housing association and 5% (2) occupying a shared ownership property. At 2% each 1 respondent currently lives with family and 1 rents a council house.

Single people remaining in the parental home and being unable to realise their aspirations for independent living has been well document nationally. In rural communities this can often lead to young people moving out of the local area to find affordable accommodation in urban areas, which can have a detrimental effect on the vibrancy of a rural community and the sustainability of rural services.

Current housing tenure

5% 7% 29%

12%

2% 2% 43%

Housing association rent Housing association shared ownership Live with parents Owner occupier With family Council house Private rent

The 2011 Census shows that 73.9% of homes within the parish are owner-occupied (compared to 64.1% across England), whilst 22.5% are rented either socially or privately. The mixture of owner-occupied, social rented and private rented accommodation in the area is an important component in the sustainability of the local community. With high house prices it is difficult for less affluent households to stay in, or move to, areas which have low levels of social housing.

Respondents were asked “If you currently rent your home approximately what percentage of your income, after tax, do you spend on rent?” Answers ranged from 25% to 80%.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 133 Percentage of income on rent 5

4 4

3

2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1

0 25% 37% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Q3: Type of property to best suit your household

44 respondents indicated a preference for a property type and were able to indicate more than one preference.

Preferred housing type

2% 2% 5%

25% 11%

55%

Bungalow House Bungalow or house Bungalow, house or flat House or flat Bungalow or flat

At 55% (24 respondents) the majority would prefer to live in a house. 1 respondent (2%) indicated they would consider a house or flat, and 1 (2%) indicated they would consider a bungalow, house or flat. 25% (11) indicated a preference for a bungalow, 11% (5) would consider a bungalow or house and 5% (2) would prefer either a bungalow or flat.

An ageing population is increasing the demand for bungalows and the survey provides some evidence of this. There will be an increased need for mobility- and wheelchair- friendly standard dwellings as residents prefer to remain in their own homes with appropriate adaptations and support arrangements to enable them to retain their independence.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 134

12 respondents indicated that they would like a study/space to work from home and 8 would like a property specifically designed to cater for a disability which included living on one level without stairs. Respondents were able to provide details of any specific housing requirements (eg relating to a disability) and these comments have aided the analysis but are considered confidential so are not reproduced within this report.

Q4: Preferred housing tenure Respondents were asked to indicated their preferred tenure and were able to indicate more than one type. Of the 41 responses to this question most would prefer owner occupier (19, 46%), with 5% (3 respondents) each indicating a preference for housing association or private rent and owner occupier or self-build. 3% (2) of respondents would prefer to rent from a housing association, whilst 1% (2) want a housing association shared ownership property or to rent privately.

Preferred housing tenure

2% 2% 7% 5% 5% 5% 3%

46% 7%

3% 3% 2% 5%

5%

Housing association rent Housing association rent or shared ownership Housing association rent, shared ownership or owner occupier Housing association rent or owner occupier Housing association rent or private rent Housing assocation rent, shared ownership, private rent, or self-build Housing association rent, private rent, owner occupier Housing association shared ownership Housing association shared ownership or owner occupier Housing association shared ownership, owner occupier or self-build Owner occupier Owner occupier or self-build Private rent Private rent or housing association shared ownership

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 135

Q5: Local connection Respondents were asked to indicate their connection to the parish and were able to indicate more than one connection, the results of which can be seen in the following chart.

Local connection 45 40 40 35 30 25 20 17 15 9 10 3 5 1 0 Currently live in Previously lived Close relatives in Currently work in Born in parish the parish in the parish the parish the parish but moved away

As can be seen the majority currently live in the parish (88.8%), whilst 3 (6.6%) previously lived within the parish and 1 (2.2%) was born in the parish but moved away. 17 respondents (37.7%) have close relatives within the parish and 9 (20%) currently work in the parish.

Q6: Financial details

The information provided in response to these questions is confidential and not reproduced herein.

Q7: Housing waiting list

5 respondent households indicated that they are currently registered on the local authority housing waiting list.

Q8 & Q9: Detail of household seeking alternative housing

The information provided in response to these questions is confidential and not reproduced herein.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 136 3. Conclusion There is a need for forty-five new homes for people with a defined local connection and the specific need is for: Housing association rent  1 x 1 bed bungalow  3 x 1 bed flat/maisonette  4 x 2 bed bungalow  1 x 2 bed bungalow – adapted  5 x 2 bed house  4 x 3 bed house  1 x 4 bed house

Housing association shared ownership  1 x 2 bed flat or house  4 x 2 bed house  1 x 3 bed house

Owner occupier  1 x 1 bed bungalow  6 x 2 bed bungalow  1 x 2 bed flat/maisonette  3 x 2 bed house  3 x 3 bed bungalow  1 x 3 bed bungalow – adapted  2 x 3 bed house  2 x 4 bed house  1 x 5 bed house

It is recommended that appropriate provision is made in the proposed Neighbourhood Development Plan to ensure that future development reflects the above needs of the local community and in particular the provision of: - affordable one and two bed homes, and - accommodation to meet the needs of older people.

4. Contact Information Mrs Barbara Bland - Clerk to Meriden Parish Council 55 James Dawson Drive, Millisons Wood, Coventry CV5 9QJ Telephone: 01676 522474 Email: [email protected] Website: www.meridenparishcouncil.org.uk

Sarah Brooke-Taylor - WRCC, Rural Housing Enabler Warwick Enterprise Park, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire CV35 9EF Telephone: 01789 842182 Email: [email protected] Website: www.wrccrural.org.uk

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 137 Appendix A

Housing survey for Meriden Parish

This survey is being carried out for Meriden Parish Council as the parish council is aware that a lack of suitable housing can be an issue for many households and can lead to local people being forced to move away.

When the survey is complete the parish council will explore how any housing needs can be addressed by the Neighbourhood Development Plan. This form is to be completed if your household, anyone in it or anyone else you know has a need for alternative housing and wishes to live within the parish of Meriden. If you know anyone currently living elsewhere who would like to return to live in the parish please ask them to contact the Rural Housing Enabler (details on back page) to receive a copy of this form. They would need to have a strong local connection, eg they work in the parish, previously lived in the parish or have a close relative (parent, sibling, adult child) currently living in the parish.

This data is collected for the purpose of identifying parish wide housing need only for the Neighbourhood Development Plan and will not be used for any other purpose. All information will be treated in strict confidence and neither the parish council nor any of its representatives will see individual replies. Individual returns will be anonymised and analysis will be carried out by WRCC (an independent charity supporting Warwickshire’s rural communities), who will retain, and eventually shred, all survey forms. A separate form should be completed by each household in need of alternative housing if they wish to be housed within the parish. If necessary, please request extra forms; see contact details at the end of the survey.

Completed survey forms should be returned by 31st July 2018 using the attached Freepost envelope.

Survey sponsored by:

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 138 1. Which of the following statements apply to your household (tick all that apply)?

 Need a larger home  Wish to downsize  Will need own home within the next two years and wish to stay in/return to the parish  Struggling to afford our/my existing home  Need to be closer to a carer or dependent  Need a home that is more accessible  Current home is in disrepair  Need a new home for another reason - please explain below

2. Current dwelling - what type of property do you currently live in?  Bungalow  Flat / maisonette  House  Other …………………….………………..

Number of bedrooms …………….

 Rent - housing association*  Owned (with/without mortgage)  Rent – private*  Live with parents

 Shared ownership (part rent part buy)  Other ……………………………………….

* If you currently rent your home approximately what percentage % of your income, after tax, do you spend on rent?

3. What type of property would best suit your household (tick all that apply)?  Bungalow  House  Flat / maisonette

Number of bedrooms …………….

 To include a study/space to work from home  Specifically designed to cater for a disability Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 139 Please provide details of any specific housing requirements (eg relating to a disability) for yourself or any member of your household who is seeking housing with you.

4. Is your household looking for (tick all that apply)?

 Rent - housing association  Owned (with / without mortgage)  Rent - private  Self-build  Shared ownership (part rent part buy) 5. What is your connection to this parish (tick all that apply)?  Currently live in the parish (how many years? ...... )  Previously lived in the parish (how many years? ……………..)  Have close relatives living in the parish (eg mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter)  Currently work in the parish (how many years? ……………….)  Were born in the parish but moved away

6. It is important to understand what people can afford.

Please indicate the approximate total annual gross income (before tax) of the household in need of alternative housing. Do not include housing or other benefits.

£

Do you have savings or equity in your current home that could be used towards a new home?

 Yes savings £...... / equity £……………………..  No

7. Are you on the District Council’s housing waiting list (Home Choice Plus)? Yes No

Find out more about the local housing register at www.solihull.gov.uk/housing, call 0121 704 8001 or visit a Solihull connect walk-in centre.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 140

8. Details of the household seeking alternative housing

Age (yrs) Sex (M / F) Relationship to person completing survey form

Person 1 Person completing form

Person 2

Person 3

Person 4

Person 5

Person 6

9. Please provide your name and contact details. We may need to contact you to obtain information to aid the analysis of your housing need. Any information you give will remain confidential to WRCC.

Name

Address

Email / telephone

Thank you for your help in conducting this survey.

If you have questions regarding this survey or you require additional survey forms please contact Sarah Brooke-Taylor, Rural Housing Enabler, by telephone 01789 842182 or email [email protected].

Please return this form using the Freepost envelope provided no later than 31st July 2018.

(or post to Freepost Plus RSRR-KAGE-GBUR, Warwickshire Rural Community Council, Warwick Enterprise Park, Wellesbourne, Warwick CV35 9EF)

Meriden Consultation Statement January 2020 v.1 141 WRCC is a registered charity No.1081017 and a Company Limited by Guarantee in England and Wales No. 3930819. Find out more at www.ruralwarwickshire.org.uk Appendix B Property search within Meriden parish August 2018. Currently for sale

Agent Street No. Type Price £ Comment of bed s Atkinson Stilgoe Showell Lane 4 detached house 1,100,00 2 acres 0

Hunters Whitestitch 5 detached house 1,075,00 character Lane 0 property

John Shepherd Leymere Close 4 detached house 675,000

Purplebricks Leys Lane 4 detached house 599,950 character property

Atkinson Stilgoe Wyatt Way 4 detached house 595,000

Hunters Fillongley Road 4 detached bungalow 525,000

Payne Berkswell Road 3 detached house 495,000 character Associates property

Atkinson Stilgoe Albert Road 2 detached bungalow 425,000

Atkinson Stilgoe Strawberry 3 semi-detached 275,000 coach house Fields house

Ferndown Arden Close 3 semi-detached 270,000 Estates house

Emoov Main Road 2 apartment 245,000 character property

Atkinson Stilgoe Main Road 2 semi-detached 239,950 house

Up Estates Darlaston Court 2 apartment 110,000

H2L Fairfield Rise 1 apartment 95,000

Previously sold

Date Street No.of Type Price £ sold beds Apr-18 Letitia Avenue 5 detached house 522,500

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 142 Apr-18 Fillongley Road 3 semi-detached house 330,000

Apr-18 Thebes Close 3 detached house 305,000

Mar-18 Letitia Avenue detached house 526,500

Feb-18 Bonneville Close 4 detached house 379,000

Feb-18 Letitia Avenue detached house 545,000

Jan-18 Arden Close 3 semi-detached house 260,000

Dec-17 Birmingham Road 3 terraced house 265,000

Dec-17 Leys Lane 3 terraced house 311,000

Dec-17 Letitia Avenue 3 semi-detached house 265,000

Dec-17 Millisons Wood 3 semi-detached house 365,000

Dec-17 Millisons Wood 4 detached house 450,000

Nov-17 Main Road 3 detached house 335,000

Oct-17 Hampton Lane 3 detached house 515,000

Sep-17 Whichcote Avenue 3 semi-detached house 412,500

Sep-17 Jubilee Close 2 terraced house 127,500

Sep-17 Strawberry Fields 2 semi-detached house 235,000

Sep-17 Maxstoke Lane 3 terraced house 248,000

Aug-17 Alspath Road 3 terraced house 249,995

Aug-17 Luxor Lane 3 detached house 325,000

Aug-17 Darlaston Court flat - leasehold 114,000

Aug-17 Bonneville Close 5 detached house 510,000

Aug-17 Letitia Avenue 4 detached house 475,000

Aug-17 Strawberry Fields 2 semi-detached house 219,000

Jul-17 Leys Lane 3 semi-detached house 270,000

Average house prices

Property type Average £ Average £ -5% Average £ -10% 1 bed apartment 95,000 90,250 85,500

2 bed apartment 110,000 104,500 99,000

2 bed apartment - character property 245,000 232,750 220,500

2 bed terraced house 127,500 121,125 114,750

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 143 2 bed detached bungalow 425,000 403,750 382,500

2 bed semi-detached house 231,317 219,751 208,185

3 bed detached house - character 495,000 470,250 445,500 property

3 bed semi-detached house 305,938 290,641 275,344

3 bed terraced house 268,499 255,074 241,649

3 bed detached house 370,000 351,500 333,000

4 bed detached bungalow 525,000 498,750 472,500

4 bed detached house 612,333 581,717 551,100

4 bed detached house - period property 599,950 569,953 539,955

5 bed detached house 516,250 490,438 464,625

5 bed detached house - character 1,075,000 1,021,250 967,500 property

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 144 Appendix C

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 145 Appendix 10: Pre-Submission Public Consultation Notice Proof of Public Notice Advertisement in Solihull Observer

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 146

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 147 Appendix 11: Summary of Reg 14 Comments and Steering Group’s Responses Meriden Neighbourhood Development Plan Pre-Submission Consultation Responses – October 2019

Rep Name & Post Code Organisation Summary of Third Party Response Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Code (if applicable) represented (where Response applicable) 001 Berkswell Parish General – In response to your regulation 14 consultation, No action required Council my Council has asked me to write supporting your draft NDP. It is our general position that it is inappropriate for a parish council to comment on policies that will not have effect outside of the designated area. However, in the spirit of good relations, we would note that there is much within the NDP that we welcome and support.

002 Balsall Common General - Balsall Parish Council at its meeting of 9 October No action required Parish Council 2019 resolved to confirm its support of the Meriden Neighbourhood Development Plan Pre-submission Draft. 003 D. Williams General – I am very impressed with the efforts of the No action required CV7 7NS council in keeping the village in a good condition and making sure all improvements are in line with the council’s wishes. 004 Alice Graves General – I broadly support the findings of the No action required CV7 7QQ Neighbourhood Development Plan.

005 Carol Stafford General – I support the parish council in their No action required CV7 7LP Neighbourhood Plan.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 148 006 Gerry Russell General – I am pleased to support the Meriden No action required CV7 7NH Neighbourhood Development Plan. To me, it looks very comprehensive and offers a balanced view. I especially welcome the concept of narrowing Main Road as vehicles travel too fast along this road. 007 Mrs Barbara Ann General - Further to the Neighbourhood Development Page 19, 47 and Policy N3 to be Bland Plan Regulation 14 consultation I congratulate the amended as follows: CV5 9QJ working group in getting the NDP pre-submission document in process prior to its submission to SMBC for Page 19 – Re worded as: independent examination. Plans for the Silvertree biomass plant and wastewater recycling plant with Just a few items I bring to your attention as follows:- open composting for food waste have been halted. 1. Page 19 – Silvertree Biomass Plant It should be noted that Silvertree and all associated companies are no longer trading and currently the biomass plant development is halted.

2. Page 47 – Figure 17 remove ‘n’ from Downlands to read Page 47 – ‘n’ removed Dowlands.

3. Policy N3 – Green Infrastructure Policy N3 – following added: All developers submitting planning applications for 6.16.4. All development which landscaping and new tree planting require validation for includes new landscaping and tree measuring tree/canopy removal imposing replanting of planting must ensure adequate space tree canopies of similar cover to re-establish within 30 is provided in order to take account of years of planting with appropriate management ensuring the long-term growth of new a “woodland of saplings” does not have one tree whose planting. Where existing trees are canopy suppresses woodland growth. retained, adequate space must also be provided around the trees in order I am not sure if it is too late to put something in to reflect to ensure that root and canopies are tree re-planting by developers where swathes of protected, and future growth is

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 149 woodland/hedgerow is removed for development planned for. purposes. 008 Natural England General - Natural England does not have any specific No action required comments on this draft neighbourhood plan. 009 Coal Authority General - As you will be aware the Neighbourhood Plan No action required area lies within the current defined deep coalfield. However the Neighbourhood Plan area does not contain any surface coal resources or recorded risks from past coal mining activity at shallow depth. On this basis the Coal Authority has no specific comments to make on the Neighbourhood Plan.

In the spirit of ensuring efficiency of resources and proportionality it will not be necessary for you to provide The Coal Authority with any future drafts or updates to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. This letter can be used as evidence for the legal and procedural consultation requirements. 010 SMBC General - 1.1 Overall, the pre-submission draft Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) is well presented and clearly structured. The Vision, Objectives and Policies are clearly set out and the document reads well and is easy to navigate. The content is generally consistent with national and local planning policies and addresses topic areas appropriate to the Meriden Parish area. The Council is generally supportive of and welcomes many of the aims and objectives of the policies, particularly those relating to design, village character and heritage and natural assets.

Vision and Strategic Objectives

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 150 1.1 The Council welcomes and is supportive of the Vision and Strategic Objectives set out in the Plan.

Housing

1.2 Much of the content of the housing policies is welcomed as consistent with national and local planning policies and providing more detailed guidance appropriate to a NDP. However, there are some recommended amendments.

1.3 There is no specific policy on the proposed housing allocation on land at Birmingham Road/Maxstoke Lane, Agree: Reword 5.2.3 last sentence as however the allocation is discussed in context within follows: The results showed that the chapter. It would be helpful if it could be made SMBC’s proposed housing allocation clearer at paragraph 5.2.3 which refers to ‘the old site 10 as set out on in Figure 7 (the garage/caravan site on Birmingham Road’ that this old garage / caravan site on preferred option is the SMBC proposed housing Birmingham Road) was the most allocation site 10 (as then set out on page 28). The highly preferred by residents for text in the NDP regarding the ecological survey of the housing development. (See Figure 6). site is useful and informative but it is suggested that a simpler, shorter text is used, which sets out the most Agree: Reword 5.2.4.3 as follows: recent recommendation, whilst referencing the “To consider the biodiversity value, a follow up preliminary LWS appraisal January 2016 report as evidence. was carried out to identify any potentially valuable features within the following designated sites…”

This can be read on pages 44 and 45 of Meriden’s Ecological Report – Appendix 10 – as featured on Meriden Parish Council’s website at http://www.meridenparishcouncil.or

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 151 g.uk/regulation-14/

The recommendations read as follows:

“The development parcel contains un-

managed grassland and scrub with developing trees which is not of

significant ecological quality to warrant a further in-depth LWS survey. Ecological mitigation measures detailed in the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Additional Site Options Ecological Assessment should be followed but no follow up actions are required as part of the LWS process.

“In summary, the curtilage of the development parcel should be retained encompassing standard

trees, hedgerows and scrub particularly on its boundaries. This

will help maintain the sites existing green aspect. The pond should also be kept intact. The presence of grassland and scrub still permits the presence of protected reptiles and amphibians and these as such should be surveyed for appropriately.”

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 152 1.4 Policy H3 requires all new housing developments to Unless Meriden’s Parish Design ‘have regard to the Meriden’s Parish Design Statement (MPDS) conflicts with either Statement’. The Design Statement is dated 2011, and the current NPPF or the adopted therefore pre-dates the original National Planning Solihull Local Plan 2013, the policy can Policy Framework (NPPF) that was published in 2012 require new housing developments to and the subsequent revised NPPF’s published in 2018 have regard to it. The content of the and 2019. The Design Statement also predates the Parish Design Statement is still valid. It adopted Solihull Local Plan 2013. Consequently, design has undergone extensive consultation guidance within the NPPF and Solihull Local Plan will with other agencies and residents and little has changed in the last 8 years. currently have precedence.

In Solihull’s Draft Local Plan, Section 13. Delivering and Monitoring, Theme – Promoting Quality of Place, Policy P15 – Securing Design Quality, Delivery bullet point 3 states ‘Support the preparation of Village Design Statements by local communities.

1.5 To ensure that the NDP is clear in this respect, it is recommended that the second sentence of Policy H3.1 Suggest rewording second sentence to: should be deleted or amended to take account of “Development proposals must subsequent national and local policy guidance on demonstrate how the Design design and this should then be referenced in the Statement has been taken into explanation. account.” The Design Statement will be reviewed 1.6 The Parish Council may wish to consider updating the as part of the NDP review process. Design statement in due course. However, any amendments would need to be in accordance with Agree: To be amended to take account current planning policy design guidance. of subsequent national and local policy guidance on design.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 153 1.7 Paragraph 5.7.2 sets out General Guidance taken from the Parish Design Statement for housing within Meriden Parish. However, as above, account needs to be taken of subsequent planning policy guidance on design as some of the proposals may be contrary to current planning policy guidance.

1.8 The second bullet point of paragraph 5.7.2 proposes SMBC comments that ‘The Council that future developments more than two storeys high considers that building heights should should not generally be acceptable. However, this may be appropriate and effective in be contrary to the NPPF since it does not necessarily delivering high quality urban design, in make the most efficient use of land. (Please see the context of the development and its Paragraph 122, NPPF (2019)). It may also be contrary surroundings.’

to the key design principles of the adopted Solihull Suggest rewording the second bullet: Local Plan and, as highlighted in paragraph 1.6 above, Building heights of proposed subsequent policy guidance on design would take developments should be appropriate precedence over the Design Statement. The proposal and effective in delivering high to restrict building heights to no more than two storeys quality design whilst respecting may make it more difficult to avoid homogenous Meriden’s rural context, character development lacking character, interest and focal and the proposed development’s points. The Council considers that building heights surroundings. should be appropriate and effective in delivering high quality urban design, in the context of the development and its surroundings.

1.9 The third bullet point of paragraph 5.7.2 proposes that SMBC is currently preparing guidance back-land development should not generally be on back-land development which can allowed. Again, since this may not achieve the most be incorporated into any future effective use of land it may be contrary to the NPPF policies for Meriden. and Local Planning Policy. With effective and Suggest rewording: Replace ‘should appropriate design, such developments can enhance not be generally allowed’ with ‘should be discouraged unless it can be

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 154 the local area, meeting local identified needs and demonstrated that it is sustainable should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It should and respects Meriden’s rural be noted that the Council is currently preparing character and settlement pattern.’ guidance on back-land development and this should be incorporated into any future policies for Meriden.

1.10 Policy H3.1 (e) requires a ratio of 1 space per bedroom New built environments should have to be provided for new dwellings, which excludes uncluttered streets in line with garages. The Highway Authority considers the demand Solihull’s Policy P15 Securing Design to be excessive, particularly for larger dwellings (i.e. 4+ Quality bullet point vii (page 124) bed dwellings). It is contrary to the Council’s criterion based approach and may be in conflict with the This is a non-strategic policy in line with NPPF (2019) para 28-30.1 There is ample National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which evidence of other made NDPs (most advises that local standards should only be imposed recently Ilmington in Warwickshire) with where there is clear and compelling justification that similar parking standards based on similar they are necessary to manage the local road network evidence which differ to the Local and also to ensure the most efficient use of land. Authority’s own SPDs and cite them (See Appendix 1 for examples of made plans with similar parking standards and explanations).

1.11 Provision of local parking standards has been an issue for the Knowle, Dorridge and NDP, The Steering Group recognise the SMBC where the Examiner recommended deletion of a standard and acknowledge that we’ve taken it into account but have decided to similar policy. For the Berkswell Parish NDP the create a local standard. Our plan is Examiner recognised that is was appropriate to give entitled to create a local standard that is weight to the evidence for the enhanced parking policy appropriate to our area based on local and consequently replaced the parking standard with a

1 Examples of made plans with local parking standards: Alton NDP Hampshire (made 12/5/16) Policy TR5 Parking provision and standards p55. http://www.alton.gov.uk/_UserFiles/Files/Planning/Alton-Town-Council-NDP-lowres%20002%20-%20November%202015.pdf  Elford NDP Policy Lichfield DC(made 15/1/19) MD1 Parking Standards p.31 https://www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/Council/Planning/The-local-plan-and-planning-policy/Neighbourhood-plans/Downloads/Elford/Elford-Neighbourhood-Plan-made-version.pdf

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 155 criterion based policy. (Please see Berkswell evidence and justification in line with Neighbourhood Development Plan, September 2019, NPPF (2019) para 105. As noted in Policy B8). The criterion or evidence based policy Meriden NDP paragraph 5.7.5: Meriden is allows each scheme within the Parish to be assessed a place with historical properties with no and designed separately to ensure an appropriate or limited parking and is the primary form standard is applied. Clearly the Council needs to ensure of transport for 90% of respondents to the Meriden NDP Resident’s Survey 201. This a consistency of approach across the Neighbourhood creates parking issues and has a social Areas, whilst recognising the need to reflect local impact. The provision of a local parking circumstances. standard in the Plan that differs from the SMBC SPD will not conflict with any of the

Basic Conditions.

The Plan demonstrates the reliance residents have on private vehicles within Meriden. It provides evidence of the

negative impact this has had on-street parking and traffic flow. Good design as 1.12 It is therefore recommended that Policy H3.1 (e) and suggested in this policy would help the explanatory paragraphs 5.7.4 and 5.7.5 are alleviate this issue. amended to reflect the above.

SMBC’s recommendation is noted but there is sufficient evidence to support the retention of this part of the NDP.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 156 Natural Environment

1.13 In general, this is a comprehensive and well organised chapter. A baseline ecological survey has been completed and submitted with this draft. This is valuable information which gives much more context to the narrative within the Plan and will help when trying to apply the policies for future developments. It is also good that there is a focus on a wider variety of species from the previous draft plan.

1.14 It is considered that there is a gap not mentioning Priority Habitats listed within the NERC Act, and Amend Policy NE4 – rename as instead focusing just on woodlands and meadows in ‘Priority Habitats’. Expand policy Policy NE4. If the Parish Council are keen to keep NE4 wording to reflect these priority as it is, then it is suggested Priority Habitats should be habitats. mentioned somewhere within Policy NE2 or NE3. Priority Habitats are referenced within Policy P10 of All priority habits are listed in this the Solihull Local Plan and it allows the Council to give section.

the relevant level of importance to these habitats in

the event that they are affected by development.

Corrected 1.15 At Policy NE6.1 there is a small typing error (NE6j.1

should be amended to NE6.1). At Policy NE6.2, it is

suggested that if the testing of the phrase ‘an adverse

impact on the character of the Neighbourhood Area’

refers back to the Parish Design Statement this should be included. Noted. However, many Local Planning 1.16 Whilst the positive intentions of Policy NE6.4 are clear, Authorities have adopted guidance it is considered that it may not be feasible or perhaps which already requires this. The cost of viable at all locations where new housing will be built installation is not excessive, so viability

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 157 and/or change of use. Wording could be along the lines is highly unlikely to be an issue. In of ‘ensuring adequate charging infrastructure’, or terms of practicalities, this would be ‘demonstrate how charging infrastructure and points dealt with on a case by case basis. No will be included on plans’. change necessary.

1.17 It should be noted that the designated of ‘Quiet Lanes’ as set out in the Guidance under paragraph 6.13.2, Noted. If local objections are made, may be difficult to deliver. If businesses on these roads then these would be considered on a object it may prevent the Quiet Lane being designated. case by case basis.

Built Environment

1.18 Paragraph 7.3 recommends narrowing of the carriageway of Main Road to make it ‘more in scale with its village setting’. However, the Council considers that this would now be unacceptable as Main Road is a bus route with a designated cycle lane The parish council is currently in and there are also a number of right-turn lanes along discussion with SMBC Highways on Main Road and ‘narrowing’ of the carriageway may issues pertaining to Main Road and adversely affect these. It is therefore suggested that Fillongley Road. At this point in time, proposals for the improvements to Main Road should Phase 2 will be out to consultation allow for a bespoke scheme to be designed, for after the general election 2019.

example, ‘investment in improvements to the design to the Main Road carriageway area to ensure it enhances the character, appearance and functionality

of the village’.

1.19 Policy BE3.1 – It is recommended that the second Agreed Amend second sentence to “All sentence is slightly altered to increase the protection development proposals should seek of heritage assets. It is suggested that the second primarily to avoid causing harm to the sentence is amended to: ‘All development proposals significance of heritage assets and must should seek primarily to avoid causing harm to the

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 158 significance of heritage assets and must sensitively sensitively consider them and address consider them and address their potential impact’. their potential impact”.

1.20 The text in paragraph 7.6.1 precludes any future heritage assets that may become evident. It is therefore suggested that the text on the third line

should be re-worded ‘known Heritage Assets’. It is also suggested that Appendix 11 could be amended to include the date in the title and a caveat that other Amend as suggested: ‘known Heritage heritage assets with their own significance will exist Assets’ and update Appendix 11 as and may become evident in the future. (At which point suggested they will be evaluated and added to the list as required).

1.21 It may be useful to set out in the paragraphs following Policy BE4 that public footpath D1003 runs along the Noted but there has been controversy eastern boundary of the proposed allocated site (Site over the footpath leading from the Firs to 10 – West of Meriden). Improvements to the PRoW Birmingham Road with Firs’ residents not could be made as part of the development, providing wanting it re-instated in case of Anti- an improved pedestrian link between Birmingham Social Behaviour occurring on the footpath. Road and Maxstoke Lane.

1.22 The NPPF (2019) highlights the important role that neighbourhood plans can play in identifying the special qualities of each area and explaining how this should be reflected in development. (Paragraph 125, NPPF,

2019). It is recommended that examples of positive and acceptable advertisements, signage and shopfronts are given in relation to Policy BE5 and

elsewhere when discussing ‘village’ style. This will help

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 159 to reinforce and promote the design code which the Parish Council wishes to achieve.

Local Community

1.23 Policy LC2 would benefit from a greater emphasis upon the importance of health and wellbeing. The Plan Regarding SMBC paras 1.23 and 1.24, has an important role in advocating prevention and suggest that LC1 could be expanded with tackling some of the wider determinants of health that regard to the health and well-being affect health outcomes. However, at the moment the benefits of the community assets and as policy focuses on the surgery. amended in suggested in para 1.24. Listed amongst them is Meriden Surgery. LC2 1.24 A policy statement could be added such as: ‘All and LC3 are really subsets and expansions proposals will be assessed to ensure that positive of LC1. Amended. health benefits are maximised and negative impacts

minimised’. Suggested text for Plan could include: ‘The environment in which we live and work can have a large impact on our health and wellbeing. The social

and physical environment is a key determinant of health and wellbeing outcomes across the life course. The design of a neighbourhood can contribute to the

health and well-being of the people living there supporting healthy behaviours and reductions in health inequalities’.

1.25 Policy LC4 designates areas as Local Green Space. However, Spaces 2 (‘Coronation Island and the Wildlife

bank behind it’) and and 7 (‘Memorial Approach’) are within adopted highway land. As the land needs to be retained for possible future improvements, the local

highway authority require that these are deleted as designations as Local Green Space. Parts of Space 4

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 160 (‘The Green including the roundabout with the tree and commemorative stone’) are also within adopted

highway land. It is therefore proposed that all areas within adopted highway land (the central area of the roundabout and the northern part of the play area) are Clause added as suggested e.g. ‘…where a removed from this proposed Space. (Please see Local Green Space is on adopted highway attached plan). However, If the Parish Council are land, there may be operational reasons minded to still include these areas within the proposals why maintenance and improvements for Local Green Space, a clause will need to be added affecting the Local Green Space are to the effect that where a Local Green Space is on necessary.’ adopted highway land, there may be operational

reasons why maintenance and improvements affecting the Local Green Space are necessary

Local Economy

1.26 This chapter is well written and comprehensive. The only comment would be that a date for the plan at Figure 42 (page 108) would be helpful. (It is considered ‘pre-1988’ added. that the plan is dated between 1976 (when grade 3 was subdivided) and 1988 (when a re-classification of agricultural land deleted grade 3c). The Plan could possibly be dated ‘pre-1988’ if no other information is available.

Traffic, Transport and Road Safety

1.27 Concerns are raised in paragraph 10.3 regarding an Noted. MPC should discuss with Highways increase in HGV’s and LGV’s through the village. It may for their view. be possible to implement weight restriction Traffic Regulation Orders, or signage such as “Unsuitable for

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 161 Large Vehicles”. This would have to be discussed with our Highway Services Team.

1.28 Project 1 seeks to introduce a 20mph speed limit along Fillongley Road near to the primary school. Whilst the 20mph is in force during school hours and reasons for the 20mph speed limit are acknowledged, the traffic calming measure will include it may be difficult to introduce the 20mph speed limit permanent chicanes likely in the Spring as it is unlikely that it could be enforced. The project also seeks to explore the use of speed humps, speed sensors and shared space concepts. The Council is Project 1.c reworded to read as: ‘Explore currently trying to move away from installing speed traffic calming measures such as speed humps and raised tables, due to their future sensors and shared space concepts in maintenance and suitability for larger vehicles (i.e. conjunction with the Highway Authority’ buses, refuse vehicles). The Highway Authority would

also only consider applying shared space concepts in areas with low pedestrian and vehicle flows.

1.29 The other points raised within the chapter are considered reasonable.

Additional Comments

1.30 Throughout the Plan reference is made to various future aspirations and improvements for Meriden Parish. These include public realm issues within the

Parish Design Statement/paragraph 7.4.3, Local Green Space improvements at Policy LC4.4, improvements to Designated Community Assets at Policy LC1.3,

promotion of walking and cycling routes at policy BE4.1 and local infrastructure needs are set out in paragraph 10.4.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 162 1.31 It would be helpful and constructive for future MPC already has CIL funds and a business conversations if these aspirations could be plan identifying the priorities as listed in consolidated in an additional chapter/section and, if para 10.4. possible, prioritised to allow any funds from developer contributions and/or Community Infrastructure Levy to be designated accordingly. Paragraph 10.4 has been boxed and entitled, Community Aspirations Priorities.

It is more appropriate that aspirations/projects should be in their respective sections because they are most relevant there. However, an additional appendix could be provided listed all the aspirations/projects with a cross reference to CIL.

011 Tyler Parkes on General - The CCWMP urge the Parish Council to behalf of Chief recognise the importance of considering crime prevention Constable of West in all appropriate policies and proposals within the NP. Midlands Police The introduction of policy wording to promote the development of safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion should be considered. Amendments are sought to Draft Policies which will ensure consistency with national and local overarching planning policies and ensure that the NP meets the basic conditions.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 163 The CCWMP requests that the Parish Council involve them in the plan making and implementation process on an on-going basis to establish potential infrastructure pressure points and future infrastructure needs as more detailed information on development proposals and the Meriden acknowledges the scale of growth are finalised. The CCWMP is keen that the importance of designing out crime and Meriden NP recognises the need for CIL revenue to be the fear of crime. However, the NDP directed towards maintaining and improving community must ensure that it is not unduly safety, in line with national and local planning policy repetitive and balances the interests of objectives. everybody not just one. With that in mind, additions to the text regarding Draft Vision for 2033 (page 18) crime and the fear of crime will be included within the plan, where 31. The CCWMP welcomes the general aim set out in the pertinent. Draft Vision that the residents of the Parish of Meriden can continue to live and work in their community in harmony with the semi-rural setting. It is disappointing however, that there appears to be no reference to the fact that Meriden should remain a ‘safe’ place to live and work. In order to achieve this aim, and to support the objectives of national and local planning policy in respect Added: ‘maintaining and improving of promoting safety and security through the planning community safety, in line with system, the CCWMP recommends introducing additional national and local planning policy wording as detailed below: objectives’ to para 10.4 ‘Community Aspirations Priorities. The Vision for the Parish of Meriden for 2033 (page 18)

32. The CCWMP recommends the introduction of additional wording (in bold) to the paragraph under the Added in bold: ‘Meriden’s vision is to sub-heading ‘Protecting our history, planning our future’ allow the village to develop through as follows: steady but moderate growth, meeting the evidence-based housing needs of ‘Meriden’s vision is to allow the village to develop the community and the infrastructure

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 164 through steady but moderate growth, meeting the needed to support such growth, with evidence-based housing needs of the community and the the aspiration of making Meriden a infrastructure needed to support such growth, in addition healthy, safe and pleasant to promoting healthy, inclusive and safe places, so that environment for its residents to live crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not and work in. undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.’

Meriden’s Strategic Objectives (page 22)

33. The CCWMP welcomes the references under the sub- heading ‘Housing’ to the need to promote high-quality homes in appropriate sustainable locations that meet the needs of the village and borough. The CCWMP however, considers that it is important in terms of design and layout to emphasise that new housing development should create and maintain safe neighbourhoods by including measures to reduce crime and the fear of crime by the inclusion of the following amendment (suggested changes shown in ‘bold’):

• To promote new high-quality homes in appropriate and sustainable locations that meet the needs of the village and borough and promote safe communities, without Added: …and promote safe compromising the distinctive and attractive setting of the communities,… village or the natural environment.

34. In addition, under the sub-heading ‘Built Environment’ the CCWMP recommends that reference should be made to the need to create safe communities by the addition of a bullet point to the existing wording as follows:

• Designs and layouts should create and maintain safe neighbourhoods by including measures to reduce crime

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 165 and the fear of crime.

Draft Policy H1: Housing Growth - (page 24)

35. The CCWMP is concerned that the Draft NP does not include any mention of the need to meet ‘Secured by Design’ standards or to consult with in accordance with national and local policies. The CCWMP requests that Draft Policy H1: ‘Housing Growth’ specifically addresses the need to ensure new development takes account of the need to design out- crime and to design-in safety features. Well-designed places can help to reduce the circumstances and opportunity for crime and increase public confidence and security, thereby also reducing the fear of crime. Sustainable communities can be maintained by effective design solutions which integrate well maintained public spaces, community facilities, residential developments, shops and parks into the surrounding development.

39. We therefore recommend introduction of a new bullet point in the policy text after H1.3 as follows:

• Designing out crime and designing in community safety are central to the design and delivery of new Noted. Consideration has been given development. Proposals should create and maintain safe for the creation of a new Policy entitled neighbourhoods by including measures to reduce crime ‘Designing out Crime’. However, with and the fear of crime, incorporating the principles of the additional bullets/paragraphs ‘Secured by Design’ and in consultation with the West added to Policies H3 and BE1 it is not Midlands Police. felt necessary to have a standalone policy. Draft Policy H3: Housing Design (page 36) Added in H3: ‘Development proposals

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 166 40. The CCWMP endorses the general design principles where necessary will be expected to set out in Draft policy H3.1 a-e, but considers that it is demonstrate how the design has been essential in the light of up-to-date national policy in the influenced by the need to plan NPPF and the PPG that specific reference is made to the positively to reduce crime and the need to support safe communities. The recent updates to fear of crime and how this will be the PPG highlight the fact that planning provides an achieved, incorporating the principles opportunity to consider the security of the built of ‘Secured by Design’.’ environment, those that work and live in it and the Referencing in footnote: services it provides, to help achieve places that are safe as  Secure by Design, Government Guidance: well as attractive. In the section ‘Planning should address www.gov.uk/government/publications/s crime prevention’ the PPG emphasises the need to design ecure-by-design out crime and design in community cohesion, to create  Secure by Design, Official Police safe places. Accordingly, the CCWMP considers that an Security Initiative: additional paragraph should be added to Draft Policy H3.1 www.securedbydesign.com after subparagraph e) as follows (addition shown in bold):

f) Ensure that new development achieves ‘Secured by Design’ principles to create safe neighbourhoods by including measures to reduce crime and the fear of crime.

41. In addition, under the heading ‘Explanation’ paragraph 5.7.1, it is considered that this should refer to the fact that national and local policies emphasise the need to adhere to the urban design principles set out in ‘Secured by Design’ to promote safe environments. The emerging Solihull Local Plan Review (Consultation Draft December 2016 Policy P15), continues to emphasise the importance of promoting safe places. The CCWMP therefore recommends that the following paragraph should be added to the end of Draft paragraph 5.7.1 as follows (additions shown in bold):

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 167 5.7.2 National and local planning policies highlight the need to ensure that developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible, where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion. Applications should address the creation and See above addition to H3 e.g. H3.2 management of safe neighbourhoods by including which addresses this. measures to reduce crime and the fear of crime. The Parish Council will expect planning applications to meet ‘Secure by Design’ standards in consultation with West Midlands Police.

Draft Policy BE1- Responding to Local Character (page 68)

42. Policy BE1.1 sets out a list of principles that must be taken into account during the evolution of a design. In the light of the matters set out above, the CCWMP considers that the following additional principle should be added to BE1.1 (addition shown in bold):

j) All proposals will be expected to demonstrate how the principles of ‘Secured by Design’ have been Added taken into account to achieve the objective of delivering safe places.

Draft Policy BE3- Designated Heritage Assets

52. The CCWMP therefore recommends introduction of the following wording: • ‘In appropriate circumstances, favourable consideration will be given to the use of approved ‘alternative’ materials to replace building materials and

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 168 artefacts stolen from buildings of historic importance to reduce crime and the fear of crime’.

Local Infrastructure

54. Whilst the growth in housing development currently anticipated across the Meriden NP area up to 2033 is relatively modest in scale, based on the proposed allocation of site 10 in the revised draft SLP, there are other sites Meriden that are being promoted through the local plan process as ‘omission sites’. Solihull Council has rejected these sites on the basis of its assessment criteria, but the outcome of the examination process is as present uncertain and therefore the sites cannot be completely discounted as potential allocations. In addition, the revised draft SLP identifies significant growth (2,500 homes within the plan period and major employment proposals) at the UK Central Hub, which adjoins the NP area.

55. The CCWMP is concerned that the Meriden NP makes little reference to improving relevant police/emergency services infrastructure, obtaining funding for it or the prioritisation of services within the neighbourhood area. It is notable that there is no specific draft policy relating to the issue of infrastructure.

56. The CCWMP formally requests that the Draft NP includes a policy to reflect national planning policies relating to the timely and appropriate provision of infrastructure to create/maintain sustainable communities. The CCWMP considers the policy should state that the Parish Council would support provision of

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 169 this necessary infrastructure by financial contributions from both CIL revenue raised and S.106 developer contributions.

57. CIL and S.106 contributions can be used to fund a wide range of infrastructure, including Police infrastructure. This flexibility gives local areas the opportunity to choose what infrastructure they need to deliver their Plan. Without specific policies or supporting text setting out those infrastructure projects and the types which will be supported/required to be provided, there is a risk that communities will not be sustainable into the future.

70. The CCWMP requests that the draft NP includes a Noted. However, it is not considered policy and explanatory text referring to the need for CIL appropriate or necessary for a new revenue and S. 106 developer contributions to be policy to be introduced requiring S106 invested in the maintenance of an effective Police of CIL funding to be spent in this way. presence. It is recommended that the following wording is It is highly doubtful that such a request added in a draft policy: would meet the tests set out in paragraph 56 of the NPPF. • The timely provision of infrastructure will be required to support new and existing development financed either in part, or fully, by funds from CIL and/or S.106 agreements, this would include contributions towards Police infrastructure necessary to maintain and improve safety and security to achieve sustainable development growth.

71. The CCWMP request that the Parish Council works together with the West Midlands Police to ensure that necessary security improvement infrastructure is identified and included within the list of local community

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 170 facilities and infrastructure as a candidate for CIL funding.

012 Tyler Parkes General - We write on behalf of our Client who owns land fronting Birmingham Road, part of Housing Site 10 West of Meriden, identified for residential development in the Draft version of the Solihull Local Plan Review.

Policy H1 - Our Client objects to Policy H1 ‘Housing The NDP fully acknowledges the Growth and Figure 5‘Village Boundary’ DRAFT allocation in the EMERGING (pages 24 and 25). Under the terms of the policy as Local Plan. This is clearly shown on drafted, the built-up-area of Meriden is defined in the Figure 5. This allocation has yet to be NDP by the Village Boundary, outlined on Figure 5, with confirmed by SMBC in their submission all areas outside of the Village Boundary classed as plan to PINS or indeed by the countryside falling within the Green Belt. Figure 5 shows Inspectorate. This will take place in our client’s land lying outside the Village Boundary. due course. If the site is allocated, then This policy does not therefore take any account of the that decision will take precedent over land allocations proposed in emerging Solihull Local Plan the NDP village boundary and the QB Review. Whilst the Solihull Local Plan Review has not been recognises this. formally adopted, it is imperative that there is a caveat within Policy H1 which will facilitate changes to be However, fundamentally, the NDP is made to the Village Boundary to ensure that it will remain not legally allowed to allocate land for in-line with the overarching local strategic policy. We market housing in the Green Belt as therefore formally request that Policy H1 be re-worded as this would contravene the Basic follows (new text shown in bold): Conditions. The allocation of land for Policy H1 - Housing Growth market housing in the Green Belt is a H1.1 The built-up-area of Meriden is defined by the function of the LPA not the QB. Village Boundary as outlined on Figure 5. The Village Boundary shown on Figure 5 will be amended as No changes are recommended. necessary to accord with any changes to the Green Belt boundary adopted in reviews of the Solihull Local Plan. New housing development within the Village Boundary will be supported in principle subject to compliance with

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 171 other policies in this Plan…’ For a NDP to be ‘made’ it must satisfy the Basic The NDP is conformity with the Conditions set out in legislation, these include that it strategic direction of the ADOPTED should be in general conformity with the strategic policies local plan and therefore meets the contained in the development plan for the area of the basic condition. The Basic Condition authority. We therefore contend that without an does not require an NDP to be in amendment to Policy H1, as outlined above, the NDP conformity with an emerging plan as would not meet the requirements of the Basic Conditions. clearly the emerging plan can and often will change. 013 Gillings Planning on Policy H1 – Housing Growth behalf of Frontier We support the provisions of SMBC's Draft Local Plan, Estates Ltd which allocates land at Birmingham Road (West of (landowner on Meriden) for approximately 100 dwellings - on the basis Birmingham Road that the site would represent a sustainable extension to ex-caravan site) the village, and where defined housing needs could be met. This proposed allocation should be recognised within The NDP fully acknowledges the policy H1, whereby the village settlement boundary DRAFT allocation in the EMERGING would be extended to include that allocation, when it is Local Plan. This is clearly shown on made. There, the proposed allocation becomes part of Figure 5. This allocation has yet to be the built-up area and proposals for 'housing' on the site confirmed by SMBC in their submission would be acceptable against the Neighbourhood Plan, plan to PINS or indeed by the where policy H1 supports the provision of housing within Inspectorate. This will take place in the settlement boundary in general terms. due course. If the site is allocated, then that decision will take precedent over Paragraph 5.2 the NDP village boundary and the QB We note and also recognise the need for specialist recognises this. accommodation for older people in Meriden (whereby 56% of those who responded to the household survey However, fundamentally, the NDP is confirmed this as homes to be given priority). We also not legally allowed to allocate land for note and support that the outcome of the survey whereby market housing in the Green Belt as 39% of those who responded suggested that new homes this would contravene the Basic

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 172 should be built at the Birmingham Road old caravan / Conditions. The allocation of land for garage site, which is included in SMBC's Draft Local Plan market housing in the Green Belt is a as 'Housing Allocation 10, West of Meriden' - and that the function of the LPA not the QB. site was noted as the most highly preferred for housing development by residents when considering the 'call for No changes are recommended. sites' information from SMBC.

Policy H2 – Local Needs Housing Policy H2, quite rightly, does not Notwithstanding the acknowledgement in the draft NP specify a mix or tenure for qualifying and its background evidence base that there is, as developments under the local needs reflected nationally, a significant and growing elderly housing/affordable housing exception population in Meriden, and a need for specialist policy. This would be a matter for each accommodation for older people (in the resident surveys application to demonstrate on a case and Housing Needs Assessment) - there is no provision by case basis based on the most up-to- made within policy H2 for such housing to be brought date housing needs evidence. forward under the terms of that policy. Given the identified need, it would be appropriate for the policy to Developments under Policy H2 could include provision for specialist accommodation to be come forward as specialist brought forward on sites that are beyond, but reasonably accommodation for older people. adjacent to, the village boundary - in the same way that it makes provision for affordable housing to come forward New build non-affordable on such sites, where there is a proven and unmet local developments for older people would need. not be an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt unless there are very special circumstances.

H3 – Housing Design Whilst the general provisions of policy H3, in supporting Noted. Amendment necessary to the good design, are noted and supported, it should be made explanatory text to confirm that clear as to which type of housing developments the policy criterion f) not e) relates to will apply - for example, criterion e) should be amended dwellinghouses (Class C3) only. to acknowledge that class C2 development has differing parking needs from class C3 - such that a ratio of 1 space

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 173 per bedroom would not be appropriate. 014 Gladman [See intro of standardised undated letter from Gladman] Intro noted

Policy H3: Housing Design This is a non-strategic policy in line This policy seeks for car parking spaces to be allocated on with NPPF (2019) para 28-30. There is all new housing development at a ratio of 1 space per ample evidence of other made NDPs bedroom. Whilst the NPPF (2019) does allow for the (most recently Ilmington in setting of local parking standards (Paragraph 105) this Warwickshire) with similar parking should be based on proportionately robust evidence that standards based on similar evidence would not have potential to affect the viability of which differ to the Local Authority’s development proposals. It is suggested that a ratio of 1 own SPDs and cite them (See Appendix space per bedroom is an overly onerous requirement and 1 for examples of made plans with instead more flexibility should be applied to this standard. similar parking standards and explanations).

The Steering Group recognise the SMBC standard and acknowledge that we’ve taken it into account but have decided to create a local standard. Our plan is entitled to create a local standard that is appropriate to our area based on local evidence and justification in line with NPPF (2019) para 105. As noted in Meriden NDP paragraph 5.7.5: Meriden is a place with historical properties with no or limited parking and is the primary form of transport for 90% of respondents to the Meriden NDP Residents’ Survey 2016. This creates parking issues and has a social impact. The provision of a local parking standard in the Plan that

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 174 differs from the SMBC SPD will not conflict with any of the Basic Conditions.

The Plan demonstrates the reliance residents have on private vehicles within Meriden. It provides evidence of the negative impact this has had on- street parking and traffic flow. Good design as suggested in this policy would help alleviate this issue.

Policy NE1: Valued Landscapes This policy seeks to designate three areas as valued Noted. landscapes. Gladman are concerned with this approach and how it appears to elevate the importance of these areas compared to the Landscape Character Assessment supporting the emerging Local Plan. The three separate parcels that the proposed areas lie within are all identified as having medium landscape value, this does not rule out the potential for development, whereas the approach of this policy would. PPG states that ‘where landscapes have a particular local value, it is important for policies to identify their special characteristics and be supported by proportionate evidence. Policies may set out criteria against which proposals for development affecting these areas will be assessed. Plans can also include policies to avoid adverse impacts on landscapes and to set out necessary mitigation measures.’

Gladman therefore suggest that this policy should include The policy as written has been taken allowance within the policy wording for any adverse from a number of adopted impacts to be mitigated. This would bring this policy in to Neighbourhood Development Plans

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 175 line with the PPG and Paragraph 170 of the NPPF (2019) which have been through a rigorous which seeks for policies to protect and enhance valued examination process. None of the landscapes in a manner commensurate with their Examiners have raised concern or issue statutory status. Currently, not allowing for the with the policy wording conflicting consideration of mitigation elevates the status of the with the Basic Conditions. areas and conflicts with basic condition (a). No change necessary.

Policy LE4.1 Best and Most Versatile Land This policy states that development on Best and Most There relevant national planning policy Versatile Land will not normally be supported unless it can is Paragraph 170 of the NPPF. It is be demonstrated that development is necessary and considered that by prioritising the best there is no other poorer agricultural quality available. This and most versatile agricultural land in approach does not accord with the Framework, which the neighbourhood area, Policy LE4.1 whilst seeking for poorer agricultural quality land to be is fulfilling and complying with the preferred this does not go as far as stating this should be need to conserve and enhance the only when no other poorer quality land is available. natural and local environment by Gladman suggest that the approach in this policy is recognising the intrinsic character and therefore modified in line with national policy. beauty of the countryside and the wider economic benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land.

The proposal therefore complies with NPPF.

No change needed. 015 Pegasus Group on Objectives of the NDP behalf of L&Q Estates (proposing 2.1 Paragraph 1.5.1 - 1.5.3 of the document presents the The QB would respectfully disagree housing from objectives of the NDP over the plan period. However, with this statement. The objectives are Berkswell Road these objectives are vague and not directly related to not meant to be overly descriptive. any community aspirations attributable to Meriden.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 176 Paragraph 1.5.2 also makes reference to the requirement Amendment needed. Add sub-title to meet the basic conditions as defined within the “Monitoring and Review” between National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which is a paragraphs 1.5.1 and 1.5.2. national requirement rather than a community objective.

2.2 Lastly, paragraphs 1.5.2 and 1.5.3 refer to the plan SMBC to confirm period for the Draft Solihull Local Plan as being to 2033 when, in fact, the emerging Local Plan runs to 2035.

2.3 The objectives of the NDP are perhaps more Noted. However, para 1.5.2 and 1.5.3 sufficiently set out at paragraph 4.3. It is therefore are part of the introduction whereas suggested that paragraphs 1.5.1 - 1.5.3 are either the table at 4.3 are specific strategic amended or removed. objectives which relates to the specific policies in the plan. Neighbourhood Development Plan Period

2.4 The Meriden NDP should align its plan period to SMBC to confirm match that of the emerging Solihull Local Plan in order to remain in general conformity with its strategic policies. References to a plan end date of 2033 are made throughout the NDP and should be amended to 2035.

Adopted vs Emerging Solihull Local Plan Review The NDP has been written and is based on the requirement to confirm to the 2.5 Paragraph 3.1.2 of the NDP states that the NDP strategic direction of the adopted Local conforms with the strategic policies of Solihull Plan. The Emerging Local Plan is Metropolitan Borough Council’s adopted Local Plan recognised in the NDP but only insofar (2013) and has had regard to the emerging Local Plan Review (submission draft of the Local Plan Review is as it is an emerging plan and this is expected early 2020). clearly noted in the NDP. The Basic Conditions Statement will set out the relevant policies.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 177 For clarification, the NDP does not allocate the site at the Birmingham Road – it purely acknowledges that this is a draft allocation in the emerging Local Plan. The QB is aware that once the emerging local Plan 2.6 However, the plan period of the NDP and the sole becomes adopted it will take housing allocation contained therein are both (broadly) precedent over the NDP in respect of reflective of the emerging Local Plan Review, rather than the adopted Local Plan. This suggests that that allocations and village boundary. NDP is, in fact, in conformity with the strategic polices of the Local Plan Review, rather than those of the adopted Local Plan. This revised approach is nevertheless supported by L&Q Estates, to avoid the NDP becoming out-of-date immediately upon adopted The HNS was undertaken by a of the Local Plan Review (expected in 2021). However, professional organisation and it remains that due regard should be had to the appropriate methodology. The fact adopted Solihull Local Plan, in so far as its policies that there was a relatively small return remain relevant to the NDP and the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review. rate does not in any way discredit the results. Cleary if a household had no need they would not be inclined to Meriden’s Housing Needs Survey return the forms and say so. This is standard for surveys of this nature

2.7 Paragraph 3.4.6 of the NDP identifies that a Housing Needs Survey was undertaken during July 2018 by Warwickshire Rural Community Council The AECOM report is simply part of the (WRCC). This involved the distribution of 1,463 survey evidence base. Its conclusions do not forms to local residents, of which 68 were returned, transpire directly into policies in the with 22 of these being discounted as they did not NDP. indicate any housing need. Policy H2 (Local Needs Housing) of the NDP is based upon these remaining 45 responses (3% of those consulted). L&Q Estates would

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 178 suggest that this is insufficient to provide an accurate representation of need.

Meriden’s Housing Needs Assessment

2.8 Similarly, a desk-based Housing Needs Assessment

(March 2019) was undertaken by AECOM to support the NDP.

Policy H1 - Housing Growth

3.1 Policy H1 restricts housing growth to within the

defined village boundary for Meriden, with several exceptions, including; rural workers dwellings, replacement dwellings, conversion of existing buildings to dwellings, and dwellings of exceptional or innovative Noted. However, they show relevant quality, in accordance with paragraph 79 of the NPPF. context of past growth which has a bearing on future growth.

3.2 The supporting text to this policy seeks to justify its content by stating at paragraph 5.1:

Noted. “In view of SMBC’s Draft Local Plan commitment of land for up to 100 houses (see Figure 7), and planning applications with permission to build already granted, this NDP does not include any additional land allocation for housing. Instead the NDP provides policy guidance

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 179 supportive of particular types of proposals for housing that address identified local Policy H2 provides the necessary policy needs.” mechanism for genuine proposals for affordable homes to come forward.

3.3 Paragraph 5.3.1 then goes on to present a table of The NDP cannot allocate a market led housing commitments within Meriden village since 2011 housing development on land at (a total of 173 market and affordable homes). Berkswell Road as this land is in the Green Belt and to do so would conflict with national planning policy and 3.4 Whilst L&Q Estates do not necessarily object to therefore fail to meet the basic Policy H1 and its wording, L&Q Estates objects to the conditions. above justification on two grounds.

3.5 Firstly, the plan period of the NDP begins at 2018. As such, only those commitments granted since 2018 are not relevant to the NDP period (a total of 3 market homes) and any dwellings granted planning permission prior to this should be removed. Commitments prior to 2018 accordingly do not represent justification for not providing additional homes during the plan period.

3.6 Secondly, it remains that the Housing Needs Assessment prepared by AECOM (March 2019) identifies that 86 affordable homes should be built from now (i.e. March 2019) up until 2028 (notably not the end of the NDP or Local Plan period). Again, it is clear that the AECOM assessment is only considering need from 2019-2028 and, therefore, housing delivery prior to this period does not contribute towards meeting this

need.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 180

3.7 As such, in its current form, the NDP does not meet Noted. the identified affordable housing needs of Meriden. This does not necessarily require an amendment to the wording of Policy H1. Rather, it could be resolved through the allocation of Land at Berkswell Road, which has the capacity to accommodate up to 60 dwellings (including affordable housing) and would therefore serve to meet the vast majority of this unmet Agreed. This is why a market led affordable housing need. Land at Berkswell Road should housing scheme on the Berkswell Road accordingly be allocated for residential development site is not being included in the NDP. within the NDP.

There is no requirement for the QB to Policy H2 – Local Needs Housing identify sites for affordable housing. This will be market driven and based

on local needs data and considered on 3.8 Policy H2 supports affordable housing development a site by site basis. Not include “on small sites beyond, but reasonably adjacent to, the specifics sites does not contravene any village boundary of Meriden”, subject to a number of of the basic conditions. criteria, including:

a) There is a proven and as yet unmet local need,

having regard to the latest Housing Needs Survey;

b) No other suitable and available sites exist within the village boundary of Meriden; and

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 181 c) Secure arrangements exist to ensure the housing will remain affordable and available to meet the continuing needs of local people.

3.9 Furthermore, the policy goes on to state:

“Where viability for 100% affordable housing provision cannot be achieved, an element of market housing may The principles of good design be included within a rural exception scheme, to provide contained in this document stand the sufficient cross-subsidy to facilitate the delivery of test of time. They are just as relevant affordable homes. In such cases, land owners will be now as they were in 2011 when they required to provide additional supporting evidence in were written. the form of an open book development appraisal for the proposal containing inputs assessed and verified by a chartered surveyor.”

Noted. This part of the statement is 3.10 Again, whilst L&Q Estates does not object to the clearly now superseded. principle of rural exception sites, the settlement boundary of Meriden is enveloped by green belt its entirety. As such, the provision of affordable housing through rural exception sites adjacent to Meriden would also be obligated to overcome national green belt

policy, as set out at paragraph 145 of the NPPF.

As written the policy does not stipulate 3.11 Whilst paragraph 145 f) of the NPPF allows for a specific standard that has to be met. “limited affordable housing [in the green belt] for local It simply encourages the highest community needs under policies set out in the possible standard of design. development

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 182 plan (including policies for rural exception sites)”, the This is a non-strategic policy in line with extent to which this also permits market housing to NPPF (2019) para 28-30.2 There is ample cross-subsidise such provision is questionable. Market evidence of other made NDPs (most housing in the green belt is ordinarily considered recently Ilmington in Warwickshire) with ‘inappropriate’ and the extent to which market housing similar parking standards based on similar can be provided in the green belt as part of a rural evidence which differ to the Local exception site is not defined in national policy or Authority’s own SPDs and cite them (See guidance. Appendix 1 for examples of made plans with similar parking standards and explanations). 3.12 The identification and allocation of a dedicated site/s for the provision of housing, that are also released from the green belt, would provide greater The Steering Group recognise the SMBC certainty that identified housing needs would be met. standard and acknowledge that we’ve taken it into account but have decided to create a local standard. Our plan is entitled to create a local standard that is appropriate to our area based on local evidence and justification in line with NPPF (2019) para 105. As noted in Meriden NDP paragraph 5.7.5: Meriden is a place with historical properties with no Policy H3 – Housing Design or limited parking and is the primary form of transport for 90% of respondents to the Meriden NDP Residents’ Survey 2016. This 3.13 Policy H3 requires all new housing developments creates parking issues and has a social to have regard to Meriden’s Parish Design Statement. impact. The provision of a local parking Furthermore, the following design principles will also apply: standard in the Plan that differs from the

2 Examples of made plans with local parking standards: Alton NDP Hampshire (made 12/5/16) Policy TR5 Parking provision and standards p55. http://www.alton.gov.uk/_UserFiles/Files/Planning/Alton-Town-Council-NDP-lowres%20002%20-%20November%202015.pdf  Elford NDP Policy Lichfield DC(made 15/1/19) MD1 Parking Standards p.31 https://www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/Council/Planning/The-local-plan-and-planning-policy/Neighbourhood-plans/Downloads/Elford/Elford-Neighbourhood-Plan-made-version.pdf

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 183 SMBC SPD will not conflict with any of the Basic Conditions. a) Maintain overall balance and provision for all sections of the community with appropriate density of land use and mix of dwelling types; The Plan demonstrates the reliance b) Protect and enhance existing green open spaces; residents have on private vehicles within Meriden. It provides evidence of the c) Ensure that new development achieves the highest negative impact this has had on-street possible standards of performance through sustainable parking and traffic flow. Good design as design and construction; suggested in this policy would help d) Maintain or enhance the street scene and avoid alleviate this issue. development to the rear of existing properties which adversely affect them; and e) Allocated parking spaces (excluding garages) must be included at a ratio of 1 space per bedroom.

3.14 The Meriden Parish Design Statement was published in 2011 and is therefore significantly dated. For instance, it makes reference to household surveys

which have since been updated by work undertaken for the Neighbourhood Plan, as well as also referring to Solihull planning policy documents and guidance which have since been superseded by the adoption of the The justification is partly based on the Solihull Local Plan in 2013 and its evidence base (which character assessment. The local is itself due to be superseded by the Local Plan Review community have decided that the VL’s and yet further evidence). are locally valued and more than just ordinary landscapes. They are treasured landscapes to the local The Design Statement also sets out principles for community. objecting to a planning application for residential

development at Leys Lane, which has now, in fact, been granted planning permission and constructed. It would therefore be appropriate to update the Parish Design Statement as part of the NDP process, to ensure that

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 184 the NDP remains up-to-date towards the end of its plan period.

3.15 L&Q Estates objects to part c) of Policy H3, as sustainable design standards and construction

standards are controlled at a national level through building regulations. It is therefore not necessary to replicate these requirements through the planning process.

The policy does not conflict with 3.16 L&Q Estates also objects to part e) of Policy H3, paragraph 170 of the NPPF and insofar that this level of parking provision is excessive therefore no change is needed. and does not encourage the uptake of sustainable transport options such as walking, cycling and public transport (contrary to NDP Policy BE4 – Walking and Cycling).

3.17 Paragraph 5.7.5 of the NDP attempts to justify this standard by identifying that 90% of respondents to the Neighbourhood Plan Residents Survey (2016) identified Clearly if a case is made at the the car as their primary form of transport. Whilst this application stage that a hedgerow is of may be true, 59% of respondents to the same survey such a poor quality that it would be also indicated that they felt there was a problem with traffic in the neighbourhood area. The excessive level of better to remove it and replace it then parking provision proposed by Policy H3 part e) would this would be treated on its own only seek to exacerbate this concern. merits. With proper management (such a laying) and supplemental planting even poor quality hedgerows 3.18 Furthermore, paragraph 1.1.10 of the NDP clearly can be regenerated. No change demonstrates the sustainability credentials of Meriden, needed. including the level of services of facilities available within the village, as well as the public transport links

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 185 providing “easy access” to surrounding settlements and transport hubs such as Birmingham International Airport, Birmingham International Railway Station and Hampton-in-Arden Railway Station.

3.19 Whilst there is no explicit guidance for parking provided at the Borough level, it is suggested parking be provided at a ratio of 1 space per bedroom, up to a maximum of 3 spaces per dwelling. Furthermore, garages should be included as part of this allocation, provided that they meet the minimum size standard of This is not a strategic policy issue. 6m x 3m identified through Manual for Streets3. This level of provision would support the aspirations of Furthermore, the proposed wording residents whilst also supporting wider sustainability does not directly conflict with national objections of local and national planning policy. planning policy.

Noted. However, many Local Planning Authorities have adopted guidance which already requires this. The cost of installation is not excessive so viability is highly unlikely to be an issue. In terms of practicalities, this would be dealt with on a case by case basis. No change necessary. The evidence is

enshrined in our unquestionable need to tackle climate change.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 186

Policy NE1 – Valued Landscapes

3.20 Policy NE1 concerns valued landscapes and There is no requirement for NDP requires all new development to have regard to the policies to have support in national valued landscapes identified within the NDP. These planning policy – what would be the landscapes are: point in doing a neighbourhood plan if all NDP policies were adequately covered at the national level? 1) ‘The Dowlands’ Importantly, Policy BE3 does not 2) Field from Berkswell Road to Church Lane conflict with national planning policy.

3) View from St Laurence Churchyard There relevant national planning policy is Paragraph 170 of the NPPF. It is Policy NE1 is justified based upon SMBC’s Landscape considered that by prioritising the best Character Assessment (LCA) 2016, which identifies Meriden as falling within LCA 4 Rural Centre Sub Area and most versatile agricultural land in 4D, LCA 7 Northern Upland and LCA 8 Blythe Lowland. the neighbourhood area, Policy LE4.1 Whilst the characteristics of these areas are not is fulfilling and complying with the necessarily disputed by L&Q Estates, it remains that need to conserve and enhance the these areas are relatively broad and extend beyond natural and local environment by those areas identified as valued landscapes within the recognising the intrinsic character and NDP. beauty of the countryside and the wider economic benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. 3.22 Case law4 is clear that, in order to be considered a valued landscape, any landscape in question should be The proposal therefore complies with more than just ‘popular’ with local residents. Landscapes can only be considered to be ‘valued’ if they NPPF. demonstrate physical attributes which are beyond ‘ordinary’. No change needed.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 187 3.23 Whilst it may be the case that the three landscapes identified within the NDP do demonstrate extraordinary characteristics, the NDP is currently reliant on evidence which relates to broader swathes of The NDP is not able to allocate market land. This evidence should be refined in order to justify the inclusion of these landscapes as valued. led housing on this site as it is within the Green Belt and to do so would conflict with National Planning policy Policy NE2 – Biodiversity and therefore fail to meet the Basic Conditions.

3.24 L&Q Estates supports the overall intentions of Policy NE2. However, the Policy is too prescriptive in its current form. The Policy should be re-worded so as to be commensurate with paragraph 170 part d) of the NPPF.

Policy NE3 – Green Infrastructure

3.25 Again, L&Q Estates supports the overall intentions of Policy NE3. However, part h), which concerns the retention of existing hedgerows, should be re-worded to clarify that:

a) Existing hedgerows should only be retained if they are of good quality and species-rich. In its current wording, the policy offers a ‘blanket’ protection

to all hedgerows, irrespective of their quality. In its revised form, this policy would allow for poor quality hedgerows to be removed and replaced with

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 188 better quality hedgerow, inclusive of diverse and native species’, where appropriate.

b) Wording should be included so that such hedgerows are retained ‘where possible’ or ‘where practicable’. In its current wording, the Policy would prevent sections of hedgerow being removed to achieve access to a site, for example, which would then render the identified housing allocation (and other windfall sites) undeliverable.

Policy NE4 – Woodland and Meadows

3.26 Once more, L&Q Estates supports the overall intentions of Policy NE4. However, part NE4.2 is not supported. This sub-paragraph states:

“Proposals which result in the loss of or adversely affect meadows, veteran trees, woodland or coppices will not be supported unless there are exceptional circumstances and the contribution to the public good outweighs their loss.”

3.27 The requirement to demonstrate ‘exceptional circumstances’ for the loss of such assets is not commensurate with national planning policy and guidance and should be deleted. ‘Exceptional circumstances’ is a high-test in planning terms, which is

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 189 explicitly reserved in national policy for diversions away from the standard method in calculating local housing need, the establishment or alteration of green belt

boundaries, or major development in National Parks, the Broads or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Policy NE6 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy

3.28 L&Q Estates supports the transition to a low carbon future and the provision of low carbon technologies. However, it is contended that the requirement for all dwellings to have at least one charging point for electrical vehicles, as required by part NE6.4, is not based upon any evidence of need or demand.

3.29 This Policy also does not appear have taken into consideration the impact of this requirement upon the viability of developments, particularly those development which come forward as rural exception sites or 100% affordable housing schemes.

3.30 Until such evidence is produced, this Policy cannot be supported by L&Q Estates.

Policy BE3 – Designated Heritage Assets

3.31 The general intention of Policy BE3 is supported by L&Q Estates and it is noted that the Policy appears to

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 190 have regard to NPPF paragraphs 192-196. However, additional paragraphs beyond this, such as BE3.6 and BE3.7, are not supported, as they are not commensurate with national policy.

Policy LE4 – Agricultural Land and Farm Diversification

3.32 Policy LE4 seeks to resist development on Best and Most Versatile (BMW) Agricultural Land (defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Classification), unless it can be demonstrated that development of agricultural land is necessary, and no other land of a poorer agricultural quality is available.

3.33 Whilst the principle of this policy is in accordance with national guidance and therefore not contested by L&Q Estates, the practicality of demonstrating that no

other land of a poorer agricultural quality is questionable.

3.34 As identified at paragraph 9.7.1 and Figure 42 of the NDP, a very small element of the Neighbourhood Area comprises non-BMW land, the majority of which is located towards Hampton-in-Arden and not adjacent to any built settlement (this land also appears to overlap

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 191 partly with two active quarries off Cornets End Lane and is therefore not capable of accommodating development).

3.35 The reality is, therefore, that any development within the Neighbourhood Area will take place on BMV land, regardless of location.

LAND AT BERKSWELL ROAD, MERIDEN

016 Environment Agency We are broadly in support of the aims and objectives and wish to make the following comments:

The Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) should See Policy NE5 – Flooding and propose local policies to safeguard land at risk from fluvial Drainage flooding and the provision of sustainable management of surface water from both allocated and future windfall sites. The local policies should seek to enhance the policies in Solihull Metropolitan Borough Councils adopted Local Plan 2013 – 2028 and Solihull Metropolitan Borough Councils emerging Submission Draft of the Local Plan Review.

The , classified as a Main River, flows along to The River Blythe is shown on Figure 1. the West of the Meriden Plan area. This watercourse The River is set away from the village should be shown within the NDP as it is a major feature to the west so does not directly affect and there may be potential opportunities to protect and the existing built form of the village. enhance the river corridor and reduce flood risk in the area. Other watercourses within the Plan area should also be considered in the NDP, such as the watercourse,

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 192 designated an Ordinary Watercourse, which is a tributary of the River Bylthe and runs along within the South West of the Parish area.

The River Blyth is a SSSI, a Salmonid river and provides The River Blythe SSSI is shown on habitat to protected species including Brown Trout and Figure 22. European Eel, however it's biodiversity value is under threat from high phosphate levels. While the majority of Water management of new the phosphorus comes from intensive agriculture urban development is largely a matter for pollution via misconnections and un-maintained septic Building Regulations and Severn Trent tanks can often contribute to this pollution. There may be Water in consultation with the EA. The merit in including a policy with regard to ensuring the EA are consultees on qualifying water management of new and significantly planning applications. modified/extended properties is set to a high standard to reduce the urban contribution of this pollution.

Our records indicate that a limited number of historic Noted. landfill are located within the area of the neighbourhood plan area. It should be noted that Local Authorities hold the most detailed records of historic landfills and consequently the relevant department of Solihull MBC be contacted to ascertain if there is any additional information available. An active licensed landfill is also present at Meriden Quarry, licensed to N.R.S. Waste Management Services Ltd.

We wish to make the following recommendations in relation to the proposed draft policies:

Policy NE5 – Flooding and Drainage We support the inclusion of this Policy it states that development should not increase flood risk and surface water is to be restricted to the Greenfield runoff rate. We

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 193 recommend this policy NE5 could be strengthened. Ensuring all new development is in Flood Zone 1. Only if This suggested amendment is already there is no viable/available land in Flood Zone 1 should enshrined in NPPF policy so there is no other areas be considered using the Sequential Test need to repeat this in the NDP. approach. Please note that any watercourse which does not have any flood extents associated with them, will require further work or modelling as part of detailed planning applications to ensure the development will be safe and not increase flood risk.

Any new development should be set back development Noted. Add “All new development 8m from the watercourses to allow access for should be set back development 8m maintenance and restoring the natural floodplain. This from the watercourses to allow access includes existing culverted watercourses. for maintenance and restoring the natural floodplain” to Policy NE5 in Allocated sites should be highlighted and the flood risk between NE5.3 and NE5.4 associated with them identified.

In addition, Policy NE5 should also make reference to the See NE5.2 impacts of climate change, both regarding fluvial flood risk and also paragraph NE5.2 which should reference that all developments should seek to control and discharge all surface water runoff generated on site during the 1 in 100 year plus climate change rainfall event. The policy should be amended to include reference to Climate Change.

In addition, Policy NE5 should also be expanded so that Noted. Add “and proposals for new opportunities to reduce flood risk are identified, such as flood attenuation or natural flood risk flood attenuation or natural flood risk management. management” after the word network in NE5.8. Change village to “Neighbourhood Area”

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 194 This should support the strategic development needs as set out in Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council’s Local Plan. In particular with regard to Policy P5 – Provision of Land for Housing, Policy P9 – Climate Change and Policy P11 – Water Management of the Local Plan.

Policy NE3 – Green Infrastructure Noted. We strongly support the inclusion of these policies within the NDP and welcome the recognition of the importance of green and blue infrastructure and the need to improve and preserve it within the NDP. There is evidence that access to green/blue space improves physical and mental health and attracts inward investment. We also acknowledge that this is strengthen by designating Local Green Space as a way to provide special protection against development for green areas of particular importance to local communities. Add point NE3.1.i: All developments should create space for water by “Watercourses should be protected restoring floodplains and contributing towards Blue and from development via the retention Green Infrastructure. Watercourses should be protected of a natural 8m buffer zone from the from development via the retention of a natural 8m new development to create a buffer zone from the new development to create a blue/green corridor.” blue/green corridor. This will protect the ecological function by allowing species to migrate, protect the water from pollution, allow space for floodplain function, Add point NE3.1.J: prevent deterioration under the Water Framework “Where appropriate, development Directive and thereby help the development achieve proposals should demonstration that biodiversity net gain. consideration has been given to the protection and enhancement of the Consideration should be given through all new river corridors of the River Blythe, development to protect and enhance the river corridor of Blythe Tributary and Ordinary Watercourses located in the

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 195 the River Blythe, Blythe Tributary and Ordinary Neighbourhood Area.” Watercourses located in the NDP area.

Reword BE2.1.b and additional point after it Policy BE2 – Use of Brownfield Land We note the Policy BE2.1 states that the redevelopment Proposals must demonstrate that any of brownfield land to create new housing will be removal works to remove supported subject to the criteria that any remediation contaminants can be carried out works to remove contaminants are satisfactorily dealt satisfactorily and that the potential with. for re-mobilisation of any contaminants during site Should any sites identified for future development development has been considered. currently or formerly have been subject to land-use(s) which have the potential to have caused contamination of the underlying soils and groundwater then any Should any sites identified for future Planning Application must be supported by a Preliminary development currently or formerly Risk Assessment to demonstrate that the risks posed to have been subject to land-use(s) ‘Controlled Waters’ by any contamination are understood which have the potential to have by the applicant and can be safely managed. Applications caused contamination of the should also consider the potential for re-mobilisation of underlying soils and groundwater any contaminants during site development. then any Planning Application must be supported by a Preliminary Risk We will object when a Planning Application is submitted Assessment to demonstrate that the without a Preliminary Risk Assessment and we believe risks posed to ‘Controlled Waters’ by there is potential for contamination and a possible risk to any contamination are understood by ‘Controlled Waters’ receptors. Site investigation, risk the applicant and can be safely assessment and remediation may subsequently be managed. required depending upon the findings of the Preliminary Risk Assessment. Government Policy, as detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 170), states that ‘where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 196 development rests with the developer and/or landowner’. Consequently should a development site currently or formerly have been subject to land-use(s) which have the potential to have caused contamination of the underlying soils and groundwater then any Planning Application must be supported information to show the risks can be safely managed. Noted. But this is not a policy requirement. Any proposed development should consider the position statements in our ‘Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice’ (GP3) document, available from our website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk. This document sets out our position on a wide range of activities and developments, including:

 Storage of pollutants and hazardous substances  Solid waste management  Discharge of liquid effluents into the ground (including site drainage)

 Management of groundwater resources

 Land contamination

 Ground source heat pumps Agree. They have been and will be  Cemetery developments consulted throughout the NDP development process. Additional Advice We recommend that Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) are consulted on this Plan. The LLFA are responsible for managing flood risk from local sources including ordinary watercourses, groundwater and surface water.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 197 Appendix 1: Parking Standard Examples of other Made NDPs

HARVINGTON (WYCHAVON) – MADE PLAN https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/documents/10586/9654909/Harvington+NP+Referendum+Version+RFS-min.pdf/aa58df99-789b-e1e7-edb6-cc98eb0230dc

Policy IH3 – Parking provision

1) All new flats, apartments or maisonettes must provide a cycle storage unit assigned to that dwelling, with capacity for at least one bicycle for each bedroom.

2) The cycle storage unit assigned to each dwelling is to be in or immediately adjacent to the property, fully-enclosed, secure and at ground-level.

3) All new houses must provide at least one parking space per bedroom of the property up to a maximum of four spaces per property.

4) Car parking spaces should preferably be within the grounds of the related property.

Where a design-led approach supports the provision of parking areas or garage blocks, these must be specifically assigned to the property.

Explanation

1. This policy ensures that those not living in houses have a secure place in which bicycles, mobility aids, push-chairs etc. may be stored at ground level.

2. The car-parking provision minimises the need for on-street parking, avoiding street clutter and the obstruction of emergency vehicles.

3. This policy will require a larger surface area for greater-capacity houses; this will raise the per-dwelling cost of the land. This is intentional: to weight the economics of the housing mix towards smaller dwellings – which supports our plan policy.

4. The NP is entitled to form its own parking standard since this is not a strategic issue in the SWDP.

5. The NP recognises that Worcestershire County Council has its own County wide standard but has chosen to impose a different standard because of the need to have the impacts described in the above explanation points.

Examiners Report on Policy IH3 – Parking Provision

This policy seeks to ensure that new residential units have adequate car parking provision and cycle storage.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 198 Whilst the policy goes beyond the standards sought by Worcestershire County Council, I consider the policy will meet the basic conditions. It takes account of the NPPF in that it recognises the particular issues this rural Parish faces and in setting a local parking standard takes the car ownership into account as well as the characteristics of the local transport network.

In addition it is a local expression of the SWDP which indicates that locally specific parking standards and a more flexible approach is acceptable.

However, the policy specifies a parking space per bedroom which could result in four or five spaces per unit. This would not lead to good planning in design terms, or to the efficient use of land. A modification is made to add a maximum.

Furthermore, the policy refers to parking areas or garage courts which are not always welcomed in design-led layouts. A modification is made to address this.

The policy also specifically excludes garages “which are integral parts of residential buildings” as counting towards the car parking provision sought. The supporting text explains this is because garages tend to be used for storage or be converted into living space.

Whilst I understand this concern, these are matters which can be addressed by the imposition of planning conditions on any consents to ensure the space is available for car parking. To not count garages as car parking spaces would be likely to result in widespread parking areas possibly to the detriment of well planned and designed places. I consider this element to be overly prescriptive. As a result, a modification is made.

Subject to these modifications, the policy will meet the basic conditions.

 Add the words “up to a maximum of four spaces per property” at the end of criterion 3)  Change criterion 4) to read: “Car parking spaces should preferably be provided within the grounds of the related property. Where a design-led approach supports the provision of parking areas or garage blocks, these must be specifically assigned to the property.”  Delete criterion 5) from the policy

TURNERS HILL NDP – MADE PLAN - MIDSUSSEX https://www.midsussex.gov.uk/media/2832/turners-hill-neighbourhood-plan.pdf

THP3 New Homes Parking

New residential development must provide the following minimum levels of off-street parking (including garages) as detailed in the table below.

1-2 bedroom dwellings 2 on-plot car parking spaces

3 + bedroom dwellings 1 on-plot car parking space per bedroom

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 199 Explanation

11.16 Car parking standards have been carefully considered and are included because car ownership levels in the parish are high (car ownership is high with 324 households having one car, 234 having two cars, 62 with three and 25 with four or more. Of the 755 households only 110 do not have a car or van) reflecting both the rural location and limited availability of public transport. The bus services are reliant on funding from the County Council. The very limited service means that residents have a greater dependency on the car than they would have in an urban area. It is extremely difficult for residents to travel by public transport to the local towns, rail services and health services. A number of residents work at Gatwick but cannot travel direct by public transport. Out of 202 surveyed, only 18 were using the bus service on a daily basis, but 145 were using a car or van. MSDC Rural Issues background Paper shows that 75% of commuters travel by car from Turners Hill while the figure for the towns is 63%.

11.17 The Plan’s parking standards reflect all these local factors and seek to ensure that new development does not add to current levels of congestion. The emerging District Plan states that “Neighbourhood Plans can set local standards for car parking provision provided that it is justified by evidence”.

11.18 Policies will ensure that all developments have enough car parking spaces to meet current and future needs. The impact of new developments will be minimised by the careful consideration of new access roads in order that they do not have an unacceptable impact on local residents or traffic flows. Policies will support local and strategic traffic management which reduces HGV/LGV vehicles through the village in order to minimise their adverse impact.

Examiners Report on Policy THP3 – New Homes Parking https://www.midsussex.gov.uk/media/3185/turners_hill_np_examiners_report_oct_2015.pdf

No comment was made on this policy in the examiner’s report.

SALFORD PRIORS: MADE PLAN - SDC https://www.stratford.gov.uk/templates/server/document-relay.cfm?doc=175289&name=Salford%20Priors%20NDP%20Referendum%20Version%20Dec%202016.pdf

Policy SP15: Car Parking

New housing developments must provide adequate parking per dwelling. The car parking standard to be applied is as follows: a) 2 bedroom properties 2 car parking spaces; and b) 3 or more bedroomed properties 3 car parking spaces.

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 200 These standards do not include space allocation within garages. New commercial development must demonstrate that the site has adequate parking for its needs and at a level suitable for a rural parish with limited public transport.

Explanation

6.44 Large amounts of parking along roadsides can cause safety concerns through reduced footpath size, particularly if vehicles are partially parked on the footpath, and lead to obstructions and poorer visibility for other road users. It is noted that parked vehicles can act as natural limiters of vehicle speeds, however, in the interests of safety of pedestrians, new housing development should include adequate off-street car parking so that existing problems of on-street car parking are not made worse.

Examiners Report: Policy SP22 Car parking (SP15 in the Referendum version)

159. This policy seeks to establish an approach to parking provision at community facilities, and in new housing and commercial developments.

160. Representations state the policy is too prescriptive; unlikely to be enforceable; should be consistent with Core Strategy policy CS.25C, and exceeds the industry standard of 1.5 car parking places to each property.

161. The first part of the policy twice uses the term, “appropriate levels”, that is imprecise and I therefore recommend deletion of that part of the Policy as it does not provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made as required by paragraph 17 of the Framework.

162. The Policy seeks to shape and direct sustainable development to ensure that local people get the right type of development for their community. The Policy is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the Development Plan for the area, the Stratfordon-Avon District Core Strategy adopted on 11 July 2016. The Policy has regard to the components of the Framework concerned with building a strong, competitive economy; supporting a prosperous rural economy; promoting sustainable transport; and requiring good design.

Subject to the recommended modification this Policy meets the basic conditions. Recommended modification 19: In Policy SP22 delete the first paragraph. [Paragraph 1: Parking at community facilities such as the playing field and the Memorial Hall must be maintained at appropriate levels and any new community facilities developed must have appropriate levels of parking on or near the site

Meriden Consultation Statement v.1 201